Bailout: How Would You Vote?

[2046]

And the insurgency is still there and still a problem. If its anything like the Taliban, it will come back when we think we've gotten it beat. If, once we've left, no violence recurs, make a thread, call me out, and I'll concede.

So wait . . . humanitarian concerns ought to produce our response, but we should also leave despite your wager that there will then be humanitarian concerns?

4. Nuclear power is not a right of any nation.

Then we need to dismantle our arsenal and shut down our reactors.

I don't even know what the concept of national rights means. Sounds like "states' rights", the rallying cry of modern-day Confederate States of America apologists.

The rights rest with the people. There are no technological rights that I am aware of.

Technological wants exist, and in some cases these could even be needs. But especially for rogue nations, you can't claim that their desire is a right for nuclear power, any moreso than you can claim that their desire for nuclear weapons is a right.

Naive? Sonofccn supports attacking Iran, a nation of 70 million people, which has the Security Council support of Russia and China, and I'm naive. I can't wait to hear that one explained.

So you'd rather let a "potentially dangerous man" and enemy to America like Mahmoud get the bomb? What the hell is that?

I favor the destruction of their nuclear facilities. Worked for Syria recently. Didn't see Russia and China go batshit then.

If anybody's out of touch with "the way things work" it's not those of us calling for greater understanding of the Middle East. It's those calling for continued conflict, which will only accelerate our enemies' attempts to procure and use nuclear weapons.

Once again, rather than support democracy, we squashed it.

So we should just get out of the region and allow other nations like Russia to play there, and allow all manner of local whackjobs to hang out unopposed, fostering terror that we should only defend against when it reaches our shores, right?

But if we can keep from going to war with Iran, there is still hope for a diplomatic solution.

If the Ayatollah is the power and didn't want nukes, they wouldn't be getting close to them.

The more we adopt an "us vs. them" mentality, the more we will frustrate our own attempts at solving problems. "Us vs. them" is a video game mentality. The real world is much more complex.

"Us vs. them" . . . intelligently, not some video-game knee-jerk . . . is why America became great. This nuanced complexity thing in absence of an "us" is what is killing us.

It leads to contradictory action (e.g. Pelosi's foreign visit) and general malaise.

[sonofccn]

"I pin my hopes on," implies I'm hoping the insurgents win

Which I didn't say for the last time. I said "I mean your pinning it all on insurgents how have not won Iraq and in fact are losing in what was the central battlefield according to the terroists " Do you see hope anywhere in that statment? No. The It refers to your belief/theroy that the insurgents can topple the US military.

First off, our threat of force carries no weight to insurgents. They don't care about tactical victories, they care about killing Americans. And they've succeeded.

Hold it. You changed goalposts. You claimed our military did not frighten the world, ie that because they could call in insurgents our military was useless. Now your claiming it's not the countries that don't fear us, but the insurgents. Which is it?
Second the insurgents do have goals beyond killing Americans. THey wanted us out of Iraq for starters which they have failed to deliever at a cost far higher then we have paid.

Impressionable youngsters, those with few prospects, the mentally handicapped and, increasingly, women.

When one starts pooling those mentaly challenged or in the middle east Women it's generaly a sign that the recruiment pool is starting to get shallow.

As for the rest of the world, our threat of force is lessened. We support the nation of Georgia, and yet Russia attacked it anyway. All we could offer were demands they cease and desist, because we're bogged down in the Iraq. The power of any military comes from its ability to respond quickly to any crisis. As its stands now, we're shackled to the current conflict.

Once again it's one thing to claim that US is overstretched in Iraq and another to claim that insurgents have render the military toothless. Second we offered slightly more then cease and desist what with the humanitary aid supplied by US military personel who ended up in the capitol which was just about where the russian drive ended. Putin was pushing the world, seeing how much he could get away with. Some nations responded to the challenge others not so well. The better responded ones in my opinion were the eastern Europe nations who knew they had an investment in what was going on and actually got tough with Russia.

Again, what victory have we won, exactly? This is one of my biggest problems. Every time something positive happens, you declare victory. The situation is improving, at least for the moment. But's it's delusional to claim a victory just because things happen to be going our way.

So you have no real counter claim but something might happen so any progress made can't last.

Just look at Afghanistan. Once we were done "winning" over there, we started concentrating on Iraq, and, oh look. The Taliban is back.

Wars go back and forth, thats life. IN this case last I heard the insurgents, deciding Iraq was becoming a lost cause, have started redoubling thier efforts in Afghanistan.

This is the problem that we have, and the reason I say our tactics are outdated. There's a wall between our troops and the terrorists we seek, and its the wall of common citizens.

Once again any suggestions you have feel free to share but it's not like the military doesn't understand this. That is why we work hard to befriend the natives, which was kinda easy since the insurgents basicly used them as cannon fodder by stoking up anger with the two religious sects. Iraqies were just a disposable resource to them.

I'll live longer by not provoking people into attacking me out of fear.

I'll live longer by keeping dangerous thugs dead. The only people who fear us are the sort of people who shouldn't be in power. France, despite being a thorn in our side on more then one occansion, has nothing to fear of us no do they. The United Kingdom has nothing to fear from us. Canada, a nation with an unguarded border against us, lives totaly unafraid of us.

Again, the Taliban is back at work in Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai has even offered them government positions in an attempt to staunch the bloodshed.

Then let's surge Afghanistan.

All they said was "when the US leaves, we'll talk."

Well if we just pull out what do you expect? No we won't be able to leave for decades just like we still have troops in korea.

You want a quick fix, which simply isn't possible. Whenever we commit troops to an area, the insurgents eventually recede. But they haven't gone away.

Not quite. I understand this is a long war just like the cold war and in all likely hood will outlive me. I expect setbacks, errors and problems all along the way. I expect doublcrosses by supposed allies and vicious fights by a relentless foe. Of the two of us it's you who seem to want a quick solution, a painless solution. Once again I await your master plan. What is your solution?

Which is why believing that we could quickly win in Iraq was so patently absurd.

If you refer to the actual battle for Iraq we did :). If you refer to the long rebuild what part of a long war didn't you understand? We will be there for decades, maybe longer. It is a long term investment in a better future.

Funny, things were kept in check in Iraq by, you guessed it, Saddam Hussein.

Not really. He invaded atleast two of his nieghors, treated his people far worse then anything the europeans did and in general was an unstablizing agent in a volitale region.

So, does it bother you that innocent civilians get hurt or killed?

Yes. Does it bother you that innocent civilians are living in a hellhole?

That's ridiculous. Iran became what it is today thanks to the 1979 revolution to overthrow Shah Reza Pahlavi.

Which Jimmy didn't support despite his pro American attitude. So instead of a Pro American advancing culture we have an anti-American stagnet culture hell bent on nuclear weapons.

The Shah was pretty despotic himself towards the end of his rule. The point of the Revolution was to destroy a monarchy the Iranian people viewed as bloated and despotic. The referendum establishing the Islamic Republic of Iran was approved by the vast majority of Iranian people. What would you have had Jimmy Carter do?

The Shah, while far from perfect, was replaced with a far worse toltarian therocacy which treated it's people far worse then the Shah did. As to Jimmy Carter when you have a Pro American ally and an anti-American enemy you don't hang the ally out to dry. Now also acting as a gobetween to help mediate some of the greviences the people have would have been useful also but ultimately you shouldn't transform an ally into an enemy if you can help it.

"Acts up?" By doing what? Wanting nuclear power?

Nuclear weapons and yes. They can not be trusted with them.

Wanting a role on the world stage?

For being a thug of a country and wanting a role on the world stage. You do grasp that not all nations are the same right? That certain countries are better. S. Korea is better then N. Korea. France is lightyears ahead of Russia in terms of moral matters. In situations like this ask yourself this. Would you want to live in a world controlled by this country?

This infuriating condescension is yet another problem with our foreign policy. The Middle Easterners aren't children whom we have to punish. Secondly, the Guardian Council, not the Grand Ayatollah, chooses who gets to run for president. Khameini can only directly appoint half the Guardian Council. If he wielded total control, Mohammad Khatami would never have won the presidency. But he did, by a landslide.

So instead of appointing the leader, the Grand Ayatollah merley appoints the group that appoints the leader. No worries there right? Now I'm glad Mohammad Khatami was elected, assuming he actually wanted reform, but the fact remains Iran has remained an anti-american terroist exporter since the 70s. The odds that the next election will curve the ball in the other directin are miniscle at best.

And Ahmadinejad is not a loon. You cannot simply dismiss him, or any other Middle East leader

The guy openly babbles about wiping countries off the map and a world without America. The guy is either a loon or one cold hearted slagger who only cares about the kill count. Either way he can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power is the RIGHT of any country which can develop the technology.

Nuclear power is no right. It's a privilige one can be allowed when one has proven they are responible enough not to use them for evil purpuses. Just for the record I consider nuking israel evil.

What he's doing is calculated. He's daring the US to do something, and we can't, short of launching another offensive which will blow our international relations clean to hell.

He's a nut who wishes us dead. MAD may not be enough to keep this idiot from touching a warhead off. That can not be allowed to happen.

Again, your language is incendiary and ignorant, and does absolutely nothing to strengthen your position.

Incendiary? Yes. Ignorant? No. The man is insane and falls under a threat to America.

You say you can't stand people who offer complaints?

Offer complaints without solutions which you done for three posts.

I can't stand people who bally around childish drivel, as if we could ever implement your "let's sedate Ahmadinejad." He's not a loon, he's not a nutjob, he's a leader of a country which we must deal with in a measured, mature manner.

I said he should be sedated, not that it was plan. The guy is almost foaming at the mouth. He is insane just like Hitler, just like Mussonlini. He does not deserve the respect of a public leader and a masured mature manner is not the way to deal with him.

How do you know until you've tried. We sure as hell can't acquire Iran as a friend with sanctions and the threat of military action.

We have. The whole "Death to America" chant just creeps us out. So is that your diplmoatic plan? Let's be friendly and play nice and maybe they will be nice to us back? Best case that wishful thinking. Removing all sticks and relying on carrots has never worked in diplomacy.

Amusingly enough, I see a parallel between your refusal to talk to Iran until Ahmadinejad leaves, and the Taliban's refusal to talk to the Afghan government until WE leave. Rigid inflexibility is yet another problem with our foreign policy.

First off only if Iran made real improvments on thier own will. A sort of act of faith to show they had grown up and could be treated like an adult country, to use your kid metaphore. Second rigidness isn't a problem in and of itself. Would you be upset at a Abolitionist for having the rigid view that all people should be free? Same beef here. We're the good guys who want stablity and prosperity for the world and a Mcdonalds in every country but thats beside the point. The Taliban want to recreat the 7th century, they are the bad guys. So of course they don't want us around stopping thier evil fun.

How about this. Once America gets a calm, respectful president in office, one who is willing to engage world leaders and respect the world community, puts a stop to childish, simple minded rhetoric and starts behaving like the world superpower that it is, instead of threatening everyone who doesn't "behave" with attack, then they can talk to us

Bush is a calm respectful president, and as the world's police officer( any nation feel free to step up and replace us) we have to threaten, bribe, and coherice every nation that doens't behave. What you call simple minded is what we call black and white. It lacks the complexities and uselessness of the whole world of grey others advicate but alteast it gives you a clear moral guidline how to act.

Middle Eastern views of the current American administration are abysmal. AMERICAN views of the current American administration are abysmal. And attacking Iran would not avert a nuclear horror, good God almighty. It would INVITE ONE.

The US is not in the policy of winning popularity contests. It has to do what will be the best course of action to it's citizens and by extension the rest of the World. So why should I care what MIddle Eastern views on us are?

How would attacking Iran invite a nuclear horror? They don't have one yet,crosses fingers, so are saying a nuclear power will step in and aid Iran? How could it be worse then doing nothing and hoping they play nice?

They're impatient for us to get out of their country. And so are the majority of Americans.

To the first point yes they are eager to take more control and a gradual step down of numbers is to be expected over the coming years. That doesn't mean they hate us, and if they blamed us instead of the insurgents why did they rat the insurgents out.

As to the second point it's debatable if the MAJORITY of Americans want it. Public opinion appears to run the gambit of thoughts on the subject.

I'm curious myself, sonofccn. If your impetus is to bring democracy to the Middle East, how do you feel about the legitimate election of Hamas?

Assuming they won legally then I applaud democracy in action. It just saddens me people voted wrongly like when they elected Hitler. Sometimes the masses are wrong, but it's still the best system even if it isn't perfect.

[sonofccn]

And as I have shown, it is not good for all, if everyone is doing, what would be good for oneself. It's not a mistake, if one does, what is good for oneself, but, because all are doing, what are good for themselves, it can - under certain circumstances - be bad for all. It seems, as if you have not understood the principle of a rationality trap. But I don't know, how I have to explain it else to you.

No I understand it and yes under certain circumstances yes it can hurt us. These circumstances however require virtually in theroy only level of everyone doing something,ie everyone saving thier money not spending it. Is it something that could occure, yes. Is it big enough to worry about, in my opinion no.

I have already explained, that real free market results always in monopolies because, sooner or later, all competitors are squeezed out of the market.

Which is one reason why the US doesn't have a laize-fair enconomy anymore.

That means, that competition will result sooner or later in non-competition. There will be one company in an economic niche which will have no competitors and, if it offers goods, which are essential, can dictate the prices.

To a certain extent. If it charges outrages prices someone will step in to take advantage of it.

Free market means also that companies are independent. But in a modern and globalised economy, no company is really independent. As we are seeing now, the failure of some companies can plunge the whole economy into chaos and, when it comes down to it, the community has to bear the risks. The now 800'000'000'000 USD are, when it comes down to it, taxpayers' money.

Life is nothing without gambles. If you want to win you have to take risks.

Free market is a wastage of resources because companies aren't working together although they are doing all the same and could save resources, if they would work together if the have the same goal

That results in no incentive adn therfore no results.

Do I understand you correct, that you think that the only alternative to having nuclear weapons would be an invasion (or a war)?

The only alternative? No. It is the final alternative however and one that must always be on the table.

If that is so, I don't understand, why you can't understand, why nations (Iran, North Korea etc.), who are threatened by the USA are wanting their own nuclear weapons.

They wouldn't be threatened if they acted right, and maybe adopted capitilism. Is a walmart to much to ask for folks? :) To be blunt the people who fear us, should fear us. They can not be allowed nuclear weapons,okay Korea already has them but the point remains, for fear of what they might do with them.

I understand, that it is a guarantee for sovereignty. No nation, that has nuclear weapons, will be attacked.

Korea is using it as a barganing chip, as JMS stated, to get more free stuff from the Western powers. If you want sovereignty all you have to be is a rational goverment. The US doesn't invade nations for no reason, unlike certain countries * cough* Russia*cough*, and if N. Korea was like S. Korea we wouldn't have too much of a beef with them. I'd advocate diplomacy about nuclear weapons with S. Korea any day of the week.

But that is exactly a rationality trap. From the viewpoint of each nation, it is the only and logical conclusion. But it leads sooner or later to nuclear weapons for all nations.

IF all nations were sane I wouldn't have a problem if every nation had an A-bomb. I'm not scared of Germans having nukes, I'm not scared of Canada having nukes. Kim Jong might sell one of his, Iran would love nothing better then destroy us with one. So the rationality is fine, it's the nations that are the trouble.

And that's exactly what we don't want. And how can we achieve our goal? By making nuclear weapons expendable

I would suggest making them obsolete, more funding into our SDI related programs.

And we can do that, if we show all nations, that they won't be attacked because they have another opinion than we have

I think your saying if we improve our conduct the people will realize they don't need nukes. The problem is they already know they don't need nukes. If Iran wasn't building Nukes we wouldn't be disccusing air raids and invasions so it is causing it's own problems.

Read the sources, to which I have linked.
Dramatic drops in demand and credit were one cause for both depressions. But that was not the point. It was merely another example to illustrate the rationality trap:

the Great depression occured because the Stock market bubble popped, which lead to a drop in demand and credit yes. It was a result not the cause.

You have doubted that everyone will save at the same time and have argued that while some are saving others are spending what they saved be it for a new car, bigger house etc. In a depression, the majority will save and, what the minority is spending, is not enough to prevent a recession.

Well yes in a depression, hence it's name, people are not spending. That is in a collasp and you have a rocky time for some years then more and more people start spending the money they saved and the depression fades away. Also a recession happens before a depression as far as I understand it.

And what is with the innocents, who haven't made mistakes but are suffering nonetheless?

Heartbreaking to be sure but weren't complaining about the success the system brought them.

While you think, it is justified to intervene in a sovereign nation because there is a dictator, who violates what we think are human rights, you are saying at the same time, that it is okay, if millions starve to death because the decisions some manager in western worlds are making to heighten the profits of one company and their owners or common stockholders.

Hold it! Time out. We were talking about letting the banks go under. We're talking about hard times like having to make do with your car for another 3 to 5 years or eating more home cooked meals, or something. We have not been talking about starving millions. Now what exactly are you talking about, who is starving?

All that starving people could have contributed to mankind. There could have been geniuses, who could have advanced makkind. But because we have let them die, we will never know. That's another example, what I mean with wastage of resources.

One more reason to thank God I am an American. Look when it comes to people starving, assuming no private charter can handle the problem, yes for the love that is all that holy have the goverment send aid.

Excuse me, but I don't really understand your inherent logic.

Because we're talking two differnt magnatudes. I'm talking about losing your job, while your talking about a second holocaust.

Excuse me, but I'm not sure that I understand, what you are saying.

I meant, that, if companies would work together to reach a common goal, there would be no need for state intervention.

My point was that companies are not going to want to reach across the way and share profits if they don't have too. While humans live on this planet this will not work on Earth. So someone will have to force them, it is usually the goverment.

It is unnecessary that several companies are doing research on one and the same substance when they can do it together. That would also mean, that all cooparating companies would share the profits, they are gaining from said substance.

It means each company get's a smaller share of the pie and has less incentive to actually invent the object because it will get down eventually and thier cut is the same if they give 100% or 10%.

The alternative now is, that several companies are investing huge amounts in the research but all are doing the same research parallel. When one company has a break through, it will patent it and the investmenst of all the other companies is lost.

The lure of profits causes the companies to produce faster saving the money they would have squandered in the multi-year longer effort to do it togather. So overall less money is wasted and therefore put into productive ends.

The nation would loose in every case. All the other companies, who have conducted research are now at least weaker, if not inslovent, because they can not make profits because the one company, who has had - maybe per accident and not per cunning - first a break through, has the patent rights.

That risk ensures costs are at a minimum as a company can't afford to squander money needlessly. So each company would use a tiny fraction of what your allied company would use and get results in a fraction of the time.

In a globalised economy, the profits of a company are not necessary the profits of the nation.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Please explain further.

That's a circular argument. The manager, who don't consider the long term effects of his decisions don't care, what happens with the company in a long time.

If you don't have a long term game plan you won't last long enough to need one. The company would never have survived long enough to become so vital.

Most big companies are leaded by managers and not by their owners or common stockholders. Often, other companies are common stockholders, who are leaded again by managers. A manager is usually only interessted, what will happens to the company, while he is in charge and gets paid.

The manager can't go against the total will of the stockholders, who own the company, so if they feel he is passing up a golden opertunity they will correct the problem.

If common stockholders are natural persons, they often have not the ability to judge the work of their manager because they are no economists. They are not able to see, that, what a manager has done, is good for the company in the long run. Maybe they aren't interested in what is good for the company in the long run because they want profits while they are living. And they don't see the salaried personnel. They don't realy comprehend, that the suspension of staff, from which they have heard in TV, has anthing to do with the stock they have.

If you don't understand the nature of the company you invested in maybe you shouldn't be investing in it. The stockholders want to see a profit, and to assume all of them will die just before Peak Oil or whatever hits is pushing for an extreme scenario. Sure if you fiddle with all the varibles right eventully you will get a doomed scenario. I never claimed the system was perfect just that it was better then socialism.

Excuse me, but who has forced the banks to give people loans, who could not pay them back. It's the first time, I have heard such a thing

Fanny and Freddie Mac, goverment backed banks, had orders to increase minority home owners at all costs. The goverment also breathed hard down banks necks to make sure they increased thier quotas as well. Now yes as teh sudden surge of home owners created the housing bubble banks rubbed thier greedy fingers togather and dived in, but the Goverment was the starting point in it's attempt to help.

You have again misunderstood me.

I have already said, that I don't think, that the government is supposed to do economic.

I argue for a system, in which not economic is not done by competition but cooperation. If there is only the government, than there is no cooperation.

I didn't misunderstand you but what you state is a goal not a plan. To achive it someone must step in and force the companies to work togather against thier own best intersts.

I think, that companies can work together and can still make profits.

Companies can and do when both stand to benifit, Company A has the raw resources while Company B has the technological skill but there is no reason for every company in the field to ally togather.

[sonofccn]

"The world" does actively try to fix problems. The African Union has sent peacekeepers to Darfur and Somalia, for example.

Actually I what I had in mind was the likes of Georgia which Russia brutally invaded and Western Europe's response was the signing of a treaty which Russia then ignored. However I applaud the effort of the African Union as well as I believe Ethiopia peacekeeping efforts into Somalia a year or two ago. I believe if the world stands united against tyrants, dictators and radicals we can make this world a better place.

Talking to him is changing things in the here and now. Every bit of progress - such as getting nuclear inspectors into the country in the first place under Clinton - has been the result of talking to Kim Jong Il's government.

The problem isn't that we entered talks with Korea. It should always be our first recourse and all, it's the overly generous agreements we also seem to make for the promise Kim Jong Il always broke at the earlist convenicne.

Would invading North Korea full-force and taking out everybody in power do a better job of insuring that the nuclear weapons program there ends for good? Kim Jong Il can't break any promises if he's dead, but even the most successful take-down of the current North Korean government is likely to come with disastrous side-effects.

Would it end the nuclear program in Korea? Yes, it's the only way to be sure. It would also lead to either a reunified Korea or a more pro American N. Korea. The downside would be another few thousand dead soldiers, trillions of dollars spent, risking a hot war with a major power with the potentional to be a superpower, and a multi-decade long comitment of defense.

I trust that is a fair assestment of the gains and costs. I also wish to state that the use of the word few does not imply that I consider those thousand expendable or otherwise not a deterent. I merely did not wish to even guess a more precise number of my countrymen,and women, deaths.

Not precisely. Having a nuke or two simply means he can maybe whack a target or two in Japan, and if he ever does that, North Korea can expect a resumption of the Korean War.

Attacking Japan would drag the US into the mess, an extension of attacking a nuclear member, and S. Korea if for no other reason because the next one might be aimed for them. So yes I have to conceed to your logic, it never the less grants N. Korea an untouchable status until he actually uses the device and forces everyone hands.

Well, if the US hadn't flattened Saddam in 1991, we wouldn't have had UN inspectors in the country, true - but had Saddam not invaded Kuwait in 1991, the US would probably still consider Iraq an ally, and it's very difficult to push resolutions through the UN against US allies.

We face that problem today with China and Russia. Just one additonal reason I don't like the UN. Now back to my point. At the end of the day the UN needs strong countries to carry out it's tasks, the US in iraq as one example. That diplomacy on it's own is worthless.

The headlines for the chemical weapons finds were a little misleading. US troops found a few old, misfiled, and essentially non-functional chemical munitions from before the Gulf War. Stuff that the Republican Guard apparently misplaced in the chaos of the first Gulf War and never found again, most of which was pretty much degraded beyond usefulness.

I am sorry if I sounded decieving, it was late when I posted. Yes the artical I read did state the weapons were from before the first gulf war. The usefulness of it I think is a little more open to debate but admititly it's beyond the scope of our discussion. I throw it in because too many people act as if Iraq was a picture of innocense and loudly taunt that we found nothing. I guess it's an old habit now.

Iraq actually had, at one point, a credible nuclear weapons program under way. The yellow cake recently sold and removed from Iraq was a long way from being useful to a weapons program, and it was stuff the UN and IAEA were well aware of.

Yes they did until a nation sent an airraid. I was also aware the UN and the IAEA knew of it. It was still under Sadams control and I am not confident either organisation would know he was dipping his hands into it until we had mushroom clouds. The yellow cake would of course need to be refined into weapons grade but that's still too close for my comfort nor do I doubt that down the road when he thought he could get away with it he would start anew.

It's hard enough to try to hide a nuclear weapons program when you control the country. If Saddam actually had a nuclear program, it would have been crystal clear in 2003. I think retrospectively, it's pretty clear he had been doing a pretty good job of complying with the UN demands to dismantle his WMD program.

I wouldn't say a good job, he really put the inspectors through the maze and seemed determined to impede progress at every corner. I would say that retrospectivly yes it appeared that he had followed through for the time being and would agree with one person's assetment that Iraq was caught inbetween trying to convince the UN/western world that he had complied while still generating enough doubt to keep the likes of Iran off his back. A move that cost him.

Well, look at the former Soviet republics. By and large, they gave up their nukes quite willingly without military action. The Ukraine was very briefly the owner of the third-largest nuclear arsenal (surpassing France) but was quite willing to get rid of them. South Africa dismantled its program, too.

I think that falls under a differnt catagory. The Former Soviet republics, if I am remembering history correctly, tended towards relativly benevolent democarcies which I fully support diplomacy with just like I would with S. Korea. I'm afraid I don't know anything about South Africa to be able to judge. *shrugs shoulders* They are a democarcy right?

I think there's a rather more direct cause-and-effect for North Korea than "Kim Jong Il wants more power."

[Joke]Have you seen him? He's like four foot nothing, thick glasses and overly poofy hair. He's the least intimidating evil person ever. If he didn't have the bomb would even his goon squads obey him?[/joke]

Okay sorry. Now yes obviously the thinking of Kim Jong Il are more complexed then IMAO suggests. However I doubt they very far from how to stay in power, how can it benifite him etc.

Nuclear programs, constantly being developed and un-developed, had been providing bargaining chips for getting people fed. Everybody knew that neither the Americans and South Koreans sitting across the border, nor the North Koreans, were willing to actually kick off a new war.

Bah. He let what, a million of his people starve to death. The Nuclear program is a barging chip yes, but not for the improvment of his people.

And then something changed. Bush took office, and took a new "hard line" with North Korea. No more bargaining chips. Oil sanctions. Naturally, North Korea would start building bargaining chips...

A Hard line against a nation lead by a man known for bending the letters of the agreement as far as he could, and then breaking them when convienet. N. Korea could have started emulating S. Korea and would have been rewarded, instead they built a bomb.

... and then something changed. Bush launched a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, putting his money where his mouth was. What was to prevent him from doing the same in North Korea?

I would agree that prompted Korea to speed up thier program, possible why thier first blast was less then spectacular, but it was a path they had long ago settled upon. Kim Jong was only interested in how much bribe money he could extort from us. When he realized no more was coming he built the bloody thing. The very thing we just invaded another country we believed had one.

Perhaps North Koreans have been this paranoid all along, but I strongly suspect that the Iraq invasion made pulling off a nuclear weapons test a high priority for North Korea. Suddenly it changed from being a bargaining chip to a necessity for surviving as a nation.

A stretch. North Korea has at the very least the promise, if not actual deed, of protection from China. The US would not invade unless prompted by an outside stimuli, either reckless aggression or develpment of dangerous weapons such as a nuclear bomb. Kim Jong bet the farm when he chose to build the weapon and so far atleast it looks like it was a good bet. Just to clarify if long lasting peace and nuclearless N. Korea is the outcome of the diplomatic talks I'll be the first ones to applaude. I just don't have much hope in them.

I think there are some good distinctions to keep in mind. Hitler needed to be stopped for several distinct reasons. One was his genocide program, which other nations didn't really know much about. This is the reason for modern-day intervention in Darfur, as limited as it is, and it was one of the reasons for intervention in the disintegrating Yugoslavia.

I can't disagree on any of that.

A second was his forcible expansion of his empire. Appeasement clearly didn't work, and ever since, the US and other states have always taken annexations seriously. Even when it's a small country like Kuwait or Georgia, not really that important in the global scheme of things.

Obviously Hitler did the whole evil dictator thing very well and N. Korea would have trouble expanding without running into larger powers. I never intended to imply that Kim Jong Il would create an empire in the fashion of the Nazis.

Well, right now, they're a potential threat to Japan, South Korea, Siberia, and northeastern China. Realistically, they might be able to demolish a significant portion of Tokyo. If the US pulled out of South Korea and cut off all ties with South Korea, North Korea might try to "reclaim" South Korea by military force, but that's not about to happen either.

So Korea is a destablizing force in thier part of the world causing head aches throughout the world. It also wouldn't be impossible to launch a short ranged nuclear missile from a frieghtor, a virtuial mobile missile platform increasing the potential targets. Korea could easily stir up a large mess which would persist long after it was crushed into pulp.

The biggest threat is that they might sell off a nuke, or a supply of fissionable materials, to someone with less to lose - and that is something worth worrying about, because North Korea has had a lot of trouble supplying its citizens with food and fuel

It also leaves the fewest fingerprints. These kind of sales don't usually leave sales recipts. :) In today's age nuclear armageddon would come not in a horde of ICBMS but sneak in by boat or frieght.

I'm not going to claim that I'm sure I know the best way to prevent that. It's a sticky problem, but the entire Korean Peninsula is a sticky problem in the long term. Troops have been staring across the border at each other for generations now under a "temporary" armistice.

In life there are few easy answers. We muddle through doing the best that we can while hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. To be honest I don't know what the best course is either. If we keep negotation and he hands one off to a terrorist cell we are in deep dogdoo. If do the flip and invade that could open up a nightmare of a situation and also put us in deep dogdoo. I do not envy world leaders.

[Cocytus]

The whole if you fight us in battle you have already lost part I think strongly favors the unstoppable idea. Despite fighting with unbeliviable restrictions, rules and regulations we can smite just about any army that could dare oppose us. Once again the insurgents you pin your hopes on have not yet won anything so military wise a dictators options would be to have his butt kicked, be captured and tried and hung leaving behind an insurgency that may or may not accomplish anything within the next few decades

"Once again the insurgents you pin your hopes on." Read what you write. It was offensive, and I'd like that acknowledged.

The insurgents don't fear us as a general rule. The countries with which we contend aren't that afraid of us either. They know were overstretched. Iran isn't going to get invaded by the United States. One, the American people won't put up with it. Two, Bush doesn't have enough time left in office to do anything of the sort. Three, we only provide further incentive to powers which already have nuclear weapons, like North Korea, to accelerate development. And, as JMS suggests, if Kim Jong Il "let one slip through his fingers," the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction goes out the window. It only applies to nations against nations. If a suitcase nuke goes off in New York, whom do we nuke in retaliation?

Once again it's one thing to claim that the US is overstretched in Iraq and another to claim that insurgents have rendered the military toothless.

I'll concede my averment that the military was obsolete was an overstatement. But our tactics are outdated. We can't follow the insurgents through the wall of citizens, unless the citizens point out where they are. And many are simply afraid to. We're limited to neighborhood door-to-door searches, which are time-consuming and frequently fruitless. All they really engender is resentment and fear on the parts of those who get their doors kicked down. Our technology is improving. The latest generation of APCs have triangular armored undercarriages which funnel IED blasts out to the side. But the tactics remain unsuited to the current situation. If we're serious about maintaining a prolonged military presense in the Middle East, one which requires a neighborhood presence rather than an isolated base, we need to train our troops in the language and customs of the region. They'll be better able to serve both the needs of the Iraqis and the goals of the United States. Our intelligence arm is underserved. Remember when we got Zarqawi? We only found out where he was because Jordanian agents (who speak the language) told us where he was. And luckily, we happened to have a pair of F16s in the immediate vicinity. The citizens adopting a more friendly attitude towards us is nice, but the language barrier is a serious problem. The Iraqi government doesn't know the insurgents' precise locations, only their general area (as in Sadr City). The insurgents hide out in neighborhoods, where they either kill innocent bystanders or get us to kill innocent bystanders. And the innocent bystanders are tired of it. The more we can communicate directly with them, the more we can root out and destroy the insurgency, rather than simply move them around (as in from Iraq back to Afghanistan)

Our problem is one of ignorance, yes. How many American politicians don't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites? How many don't know who is a Sunni and who is a Shiite? A foreknowledge of the culture would have helped us better wage the war in Iraq.

So you have no real counter claim but something might happen so any progress made can't last

Afghanistan.

I'll live longer by keeping dangerous thugs dead. The only people who fear us are people who shouldn't be in power.

But they are in power, and we have to deal with that. The only solution you present is more military expenditure. There has to be something beyond just occupation. There has to be a cultural dialogue, or we'll forever regard the other side as "dangerous aliens."

Not quite. I understand this is a long war just like the cold war and in all likelihood will outlive me. I expect setbacks, errors and problems along the way. I expect doublecrosses by supposed allies and vicious fights by a relentless foe. Of the two of us it's you who seem to want a quick solution, a painless solution. Once again I await your master plan. What is your solution?

Khameini himself said he is not averse to potential resumption of diplomatic ties provide we meet certain conditions. Which is only reasonable. We have our conditions, they have theirs. The main issue for the majority of Iranians is the economy. If we provide, for example, some economic assistance to the country, we can win friends among its people. Khameini is a strict Islamist, but Islam has at its heart the acceptance of other "people of the book." He knows that. He's studied his own religion. If we offer them an incentive to open a dialogue, that's a start, which is more than you offer us.

So instead of a Pro American advancing culture we have an anti-american stagnant culture hell bent on nuclear weapons.

The Shah of Iran was oppressive. He did away with a multi-party system, took political prisoners, used torture and spent lavishly on himself while villagers suffered. Is that what American culture means to you? The subsequent Islamic Republic restored the multi-party system. The Revolution was the will of the Iranian people. You can't advocate democratic systems and then complain when they don't produce the result YOU want. I recall another revolution that was the will of the people. A great power sought to squash it. It happened in 1776.

You do realize that not all nations are the same right? That certain countries are better.

Better how? For what? For Whom? Qualify that statement. Hamas is better for the Palestinians than we are. The Palestinians elected them democratically. Again, don't advocate democracy and then complain when it doesn't produce the result YOU want. It produced the result THEY wanted. That's democracy.

And I ask you, just how morally superior are we? Waterboarding, military tribunals, blatant neglect of our own rules of law and those of the world community? America used to be a model to live by. Now we've proven we will sink as low as we need to to get our way. I love America, but I'm ashamed of the direction it has taken.

So instead of appointing the leader, the Grand Ayatollah merely appoints the group that appoints the leader. No worries there right?

Read what I wrote. Khameini appoints HALF the Guardian Council. And the mere fact that Khatami won is proof of Iranian thirst for more democracy. If they can oust Khameini, more power to them. If not, we have to deal with Khameini. We can do that by adopting a less confrontational stance, since Khameini has said he is open to American investment and economic assistance.

The guy openly babbles about wiping countries off the map and a world without America.

You speak Persian, do you?

Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad"

"The Imam (meaning Khomeini, the first Ayatollah) said the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time"

Nuclear power is no right. It's a privilege one can be allowed when one has proven they are responsible enough not to use them for evil purposes.

We'll just have to disagree on this point. Nuclear power is the will of the Iranian people (not necessarily nuclear weapons, though there is a subset of the population that wants them.) So, if it's the will of the people, what's your problem? That's the democracy you say you champion.

Offer compaints without solutions which you have done for three posts.

That you don't like talking to Iran doesn't invalidate it.

So is that your diplomatic plan? Let's be friendly and play nice and maybe they will be nice to us back? Best case that's wishful thinking. Removing all sticks and relying on carrots has never worked in diplomacy.

And your plan is, what? Let's simply attack whomever we wish and pray to God that doesn't deepen Arab suspicion and denouncement of the US and further their efforts to acquire nuclear materials? Hell, they don't even need to wait for Iran. Pakistan is unstable enough, and they're nuclear already. I'd be more worried about one of their warheads going missing.

First off only if Iran made real improvements of their own will. A sort of act of faith to show they had grown up and could be treated like an adult country, to use your kid metaphor.

The kid metaphor was yours to begin with. And Iran did improve their situation. They replaced a despotic American puppet with a government more in line with their own views. Now, if they can elect the Grand Ayatollah, that would be a real improvement. But I'm curious, what is wrong with us showing an act of faith?

We're the good guys who want stability and prosperity for the world and a McDonald's on every corner.

Regardless of whether the locals like McDonald's or not.

Bush is a calm and respectful president, and as the world's police officer (any nation feel free to step up and replace us) we have to threaten, bribe, and coerce every nation that doesn't behave. What you call simple minded is what we call black and white.

Black and White=Simple Minded. They're synonymous.

It lacks the complexities and usefulness of the whole world of grey others advocate but at least it gives you a clear moral guideline how to act.

Moral my ass. "Kill or be killed," that's your moral guideline. And you admit your position lacks usefulness. Concession accepted.

The US is not in the policy of winning popularity contests. It has to do what will be the best course of action for its citizens and by extension the rest of the world. So why should I care what Middle Eastern views on us are?

My God. You don't see what you're saying? We seek to spread democracy, so why should we care what the people think? HELLO?

How would attacking Iran invite a nuclear horror? They don't have one yet, so are you saying a nuclear power will step in and aid Iran? How could it be worse than doing nothing and hoping they play nice?

Pakistan is already sick of us wantonly violating their sovereign borders. For them, sovereignty is more important tha US relations. And they are a nuclear power. I doubt they would openly assist Iran, but if some conservative elements in the Pakistani government "accidentally" let a warhead slip through their fingers, whom would we nuke in response? How would we know? How would Mutually Assured Destruction still apply? That's a nation vs nation philosophy. Do we just carpet-nuke the Waziristan region?

Assuming they won legally then I applaud democracy in action. It just saddens me people voted wrongly like when they elected Hitler. Sometimes the masses are wrong, but it's still the best system even if it isn't perfect."

The Palestinians are not the Nazis. Germany had been positively despoiled by the Treaty of Versailles. What Hitler gave the Germans was a sense of national pride. Hamas does not have the resources or manpower to build a dedicated war machine. They may be a terrorist organization to us, but to the Palestinians they're a help. It's the right choice as far as the Palestinians are currently concerned. History will decide whether its beneficial in the long run.

[Cocytus]

And the insurgency is still there and still a problem. If its anything like the Taliban, it will come back when we think we've gotten it beat. If, once we've left, no violence recurs, make a thread, call me out, and I'll concede.

So wait . . . humanitarian concerns ought to produce our response, but we should also leave despite your wager that there will then be humanitarian concerns?

We said we'd defeated the Taliban. And it's still there.

The rights rest with the people. There are no technological rights that I am aware of.

Oh, so you have no problem then, since a majority of polled Iranians want nuclear power.

Naive? Sonofccn supports attacking Iran, a nation of 70 million people, which has the Security Council support of Russia and China, and I'm naive. I can't wait to hear that one explained.

So you'd rather let a "potentially dangerous man" and enemy to America like Mahmoud get the bomb? What the hell is that?

As opposed to fractious Pakistan, which already has the bomb and is more concerned with the sovereignty of its borders than relations with us?

Once again, rather than support democracy, we squashed it.

So we should just get out of the region and allow other nations like Russia to play there, and allow all manner of local whackjobs to hang out unopposed, fostering terror that we should only defend against when it reaches our shores, right?

Russia offers Iran trade. All we offer are sanctions and tough talk. Which do you think they'll choose?

But if we can keep from going to war with Iran, there is still hope for a diplomatic solution.

If the Ayatollah is the power and didn't want nukes, they wouldn't be getting close to them.

I don't know how close Iran is to getting one. Some analysts have said not before 2010, maybe as late as 2015, no one really knows. Uranium must be enriched to as much as 90% to be useful for a weapon, but as little as 5% enrichment can supply the nuclear fuel cycle. The Ayatollah is the power in Iran. He wields the widest possible authority to ensure Islamic law is observed. He publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks. He doesn't sound like the kind of man who'd condone the use of a nuclear weapon.

The more we adopt an "us vs. them" mentality, the more we will frustrate our own attempts at solving problems. "Us vs. them" is a video game mentality. The real world is much more complex.

"Us vs. them" . . . intelligently, not some video-game knee-jerk . . . is why America became great. This nuanced complexity thing in absence of an "us" is what is killing us.

Egalitarianism and openness made America great.

[sonofccn]

"Once again the insurgents you pin your hopes on." Read what you write. It was offensive, and I'd like that acknowledged.

If you had done that in the first place instead of quoteing the entire thing and then foaming at the mouth for two paragraphs I might have figured out what you were blathering about earlier. Second I wasn't intending to question your loyality and I'll admit poor choice of words. You still have overreacted.

The insurgents don't fear us as a general rule.

Possible. It hasn't been helping them through.

The countries with which we contend aren't that afraid of us either. They know were overstretched.

If that was so we'd be seeing a lot more from the other nations.

Three, we only provide further incentive to powers which already have nuclear weapons, like North Korea, to accelerate development. And, as JMS suggests, if Kim Jong Il "let one slip through his fingers," the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction goes out the window.

Which is why you need to prevent them from obtaining the bloody things in the first place.

But our tactics are outdated. We can't follow the insurgents through the wall of citizens, unless the citizens point out where they are. And many are simply afraid to. We're limited to neighborhood door-to-door searches, which are time-consuming and frequently fruitless. All they really engender is resentment and fear on the parts of those who get their doors kicked down. Our technology is improving. The latest generation of APCs have triangular armored undercarriages which funnel IED blasts out to the side. But the tactics remain unsuited to the current situation. If we're serious about maintaining a prolonged military presense in the Middle East, one which requires a neighborhood presence rather than an isolated base, we need to train our troops in the language and customs of the region. They'll be better able to serve both the needs of the Iraqis and the goals of the United States. Our intelligence arm is underserved. Remember when we got Zarqawi? We only found out where he was because Jordanian agents (who speak the language) told us where he was. And luckily, we happened to have a pair of F16s in the immediate vicinity. The citizens adopting a more friendly attitude towards us is nice, but the language barrier is a serious problem. The Iraqi government doesn't know the insurgents' precise locations, only their general area (as in Sadr City). The insurgents hide out in neighborhoods, where they either kill innocent bystanders or get us to kill innocent bystanders. And the innocent bystanders are tired of it. The more we can communicate directly with them, the more we can root out and destroy the insurgency, rather than simply move them around (as in from Iraq back to Afghanistan)

That's it? Your brilliant new age tactic is to teach soldiers Arabic, I think that is what they speak in Iraq. I can see the usefulness but that's hardly a game changer.

How many don't know who is a Sunni and who is a Shiite? A foreknowledge of the culture would have helped us better wage the war in Iraq.

I'm not against soldiers being briefed on the local inhabinets, but I think they already do stuff like that.

Afghanistan.

Yes because Afghanistan been surged by the insurgents naturaly Iraq will decend. You have any proof that the two were at similar stages of stability when Afghanistan got surged.

But they are in power, and we have to deal with that. The only solution you present is more military expenditure. There has to be something beyond just occupation. There has to be a cultural dialogue, or we'll forever regard the other side as "dangerous aliens."

There is dialoge. We talked to the Iraqies after we cumbstumped Saddam. I don't understand where you keep getting this ignorant, dumb American image from. Do we fully understand every nuance of all cultures? Not by a longshot, but we do try and figure out what mess is around us. Also it's not an occupation. We are allied to the Iraqi goverment, who depsite eager to point out that we will be leaving, are not quite ready for us to leave just yet.

Khameini himself said he is not averse to potential resumption of diplomatic ties provide we meet certain conditions. Which is only reasonable.

His conditions are not. Since his nation has been at war with ours since the 70s he doesn't deserve conditions.

We have our conditions, they have theirs. The main issue for the majority of Iranians is the economy. If we provide, for example, some economic assistance to the country, we can win friends among its people.

The let's be friends plan of diplomacy will get you shot, dragged through a street and beheaded. Iran should not, and can not, be given a red cent until they have abandoned thier mad nuclear quest, stopped all terroist funding worldwide, and quite chanting death to certain countries.

Khameini is a strict Islamist, but Islam has at its heart the acceptance of other "people of the book." He knows that. He's studied his own religion. If we offer them an incentive to open a dialogue, that's a start, which is more than you offer us.

Historicaly "people of the book" were given third class status. I don't call that acceptance nor is it a good idea to give gifts freely to your enemies.

The Shah of Iran was oppressive. He did away with a multi-party system, took political prisoners, used torture and spent lavishly on himself while villagers suffered.

I didn't say he was perfect. I said I was for negoations, wow why I am the one aruging for negoations, between the Shah and the people of Iran.

The subsequent Islamic Republic restored the multi-party system. The Revolution was the will of the Iranian people. You can't advocate democratic systems and then complain when they don't produce the result YOU want.

I'm all for democratic systems, and would have loved to slowly evolve Iran to one over the years. What we got instead was the appearnce of one ruled behind the curtain by the mullahs and an enemy who has been attacking us for the past 30 years. Everyone is intitled to thier choice, but you have to accept the ramifiactions of yoru actions. If you elected a homocidal maniac you can't pout when we smash you.

I recall another revolution that was the will of the people. A great power sought to squash it. It happened in 1776

If Iran has formed a free and open and benovlent society I wouldn't be complaining. They became a deranged enemy of liberty. If you disagree then I ask you if you would like to live in Iran.

Better how? For what? For Whom? Qualify that statement.

Lets see S. Korea is a thriving democratic society. N. Korea is a hellhole, a bad hellhole where starvation is omnipresent. France and Russia? I don't know when was the last time France invaded a neighore? If you can't see it you need your eyes adjusted.

Hamas is better for the Palestinians than we are.

Correction. Hamas is what they want. Hamas will keep them enslaved to thier hatreds living in squalor while mayrting themselves against the only civilisation in the area that actually has thrived in that terrible region. We are better for them, teach them to build something instead of tearing everythign down.

Again, don't advocate democracy and then complain when it doesn't produce the result YOU want. It produced the result THEY wanted. That's democracy.

Responability for one's actions is at the heart of democracy. They chose wrongly and they need to be shown the correct path. The one that doesn't involve centuries of hate.

And I ask you, just how morally superior are we? Waterboarding, military tribunals, blatant neglect of our own rules of law and those of the world community?

Compared to the world? We are saints. Compared to utopia? We're not so much. Anway waterboarding is a joke. We done it what to three terrorists? All navy seals have to do it, people will do it to themselves to prove a point but for some reason refuse to undergo what Saddam used to do to his prisoners. Military Tribunals? Could that be that we are at war perhaps. Blatant neglect of our own rules, which ones? Please list them.

America used to be a model to live by. Now we've proven we will sink as low as we need to to get our way. I love America, but I'm ashamed of the direction it has taken.

No we could sink much lower. We could sink to the depths of human sewage and act like our enemy, but we don't. We are better then they are and if you don't like it that our boots are perfectly flawless then you do not understand how this world works. I am not ashamed in the path my country has taken, I would have done much, much worse.

Read what I wrote. Khameini appoints HALF the Guardian Council. And the mere fact that Khatami won is proof of Iranian thirst for more democracy.

I consider half a nice size fraction of the guardian council. So I ask who apponts the other half.
I'm glad the Iranians want more democracy, more power to them. They still have been a threat for 30 years. It is hopeful thinking at best that they will change with the next election and time to act is running out.

If they can oust Khameini, more power to them. If not, we have to deal with Khameini. We can do that by adopting a less confrontational stance

I could just see you back in the 30's. All we need to do is talk to Hitler. I'm sure he will be reasonable. Afterall the Germans elected him!

You speak Persian, do you?

Nope. Of course in todays global age translators exist. I don't need to speak it.

We'll just have to disagree on this point. Nuclear power is the will of the Iranian people (not necessarily nuclear weapons, though there is a subset of the population that wants them.) So, if it's the will of the people, what's your problem? That's the democracy you say you champion.

There is no peaceful reason for Iran to have nuclear power. They are afloat on oil afterall. Two the whole you can't be trusted witht he nuclear weapons bit is what I have trouble with. If they voted to destroy Israel I would object despite it being democarcy. The system is not flawless or perfect it is just the best we have. People have to be allowed to make thier own mistakes but we can't allow them to hurt others for it.

And your plan is, what? Let's simply attack whomever we wish and pray to God that doesn't deepen Arab suspicion and denouncement of the US and further their efforts to acquire nuclear materials?

I'm for negoations with the forwarning that the military will come in to fix the mess if we don't leave the table happy. That means the points we say are not negotable are not negotable.

Pakistan is unstable enough, and they're nuclear already. I'd be more worried about one of their warheads going missing

I am worried about Pakistan but let's not add to our troubles shall we?

The kid metaphor was yours to begin with. And Iran did improve their situation. They replaced a despotic American puppet with a government more in line with their own views. quote]I never called them kids. The Iranians questionably improved thier situation replacing a secular despot with a religious despot. Thier country is in the pits and has been a thorn in our side for decades.

Now, if they can elect the Grand Ayatollah, that would be a real improvement. But I'm curious, what is wrong with us showing an act of faith?

We have shown plenty of faith by continuing negoations with these indivials. We asked nicely, Europe has spent years trying to talk to them. They have taken eveyr olive branch and caste it aside as not good enough.

Regardless of whether the locals like McDonald's or not.

What's not to like? Fast food, cold drinks great french fries. I can't see anything wrong with that.

Black and White=Simple Minded. They're synonymous.

No they arn't. Simple minded=nuanced. It is your worldview that sees everything the same, the thought that some people, ideas or thoughts are better seems beyond your understanding.

Moral my ass. "Kill or be killed," that's your moral guideline. And you admit your position lacks usefulness. Concession accepted.

I meant uselessness and you know it. Now back to Moral. Yes it allows me to understand on a very basic level how N. Korea is worse then S. Korea. It also explains why WE don't indiscrimently kill people unlike our enemies. Your stuck pretending Kim Jong IL is the same as the current German leader and you can treat them the same.

My God. You don't see what you're saying? We seek to spread democracy, so why should we care what the people think? HELLO?

You base your entire thing on what other people think of us. It's irrelevent. The EU has a high hatred of America but I don't think any of them are going to start a shooting war over it. I am all for people understanding who and what we are but I will not change policies based upon the whim of nonamericans.

Pakistan is already sick of us wantonly violating their sovereign borders. For them, sovereignty is more important tha US relations. And they are a nuclear power.

If they weren't sheperding terrorists we wouldn't need to. The fault lies with them.

I doubt they would openly assist Iran, but if some conservative elements in the Pakistani government "accidentally" let a warhead slip through their fingers, whom would we nuke in response?

I'm going to need a little more evidence then Pakistan is upset with border violations before I'd accept hte possiblity that they would deliberatly hand over a nuke.

Do we just carpet-nuke the Waziristan region?

WHile effective it isn't in us to kill so many people for no reason.

The Palestinians are not the Nazis.

A genocidal cult is a genocidal cult. Hamas is a threat to an ally and is a morally bankrupt party.

What Hitler gave the Germans was a sense of national pride. Hamas does not have the resources or manpower to build a dedicated war machine.

Just because thier pathic at it doesn't change the fact that they are an evil smear on humanity.

They may be a terrorist organization to us, but to the Palestinians they're a help. It's the right choice as far as the Palestinians are currently concerned. History will decide whether its beneficial in the long run.

You don't need history. Hamas preaches the same old slogan that has been preached in the middle east since the 40's. They breed hate and vileness indoctriantiong thier people to attack innocent civilians who have done them no harm.

[Cocytus]

I apologize for multiple posts, but I've got to clear the air here.

First off, Sonofccn, I agree my claim that the military was "obsolete" was an overstatement. We still maintain the most powerful military force in the world.

Secondly, we're all succombing a bit to anger, and reverting to slinging mindless rhetorical platitudes at one another. But I hope now you can see that you did say what I said you did, Sonofccn.

Vladimir Putin, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the person we should really be trying to deal with. Despite his succession bye Medvedev, he has nonetheless maintained de facto control of the Russian government. He seeks to resurrect Russia as a dominant economic power on the world stage, and his relationship with Ahmadinejad, while fractious, is stronger than his relationship with Bush. If we attack Iran, we risk drawing other nations into the conflict, a conflict which may ultimately set back American goals and strengthen radical groups.

Let me expound further on my views of military intervention. Unilateral military action without the approval of the world community further comfirms the notion that America is a rogue state intent on policing the world. The police have to follow the law just as everyone else, and furthermore, the police still have to follow the law when combating those who don't. We cannot simply abandon the law when it becomes inconvenient.

Sonofccn, you mentioned the Cold War. My father was a member of the intelligence community during the later years of the Cold War. He even had an office in the Pentagon. Being that our principal enemy was Russia, you know what he spoke? Russian. Know what he has a master's degree in? Russian studies. Now, to be fair, I don't know the extent of our intelligence agencies' current operations against terrorism. No one does. They're classified. But I do know that if we're to wage a successful campaign, we must educate ourselves in the ways of our enemies. And unfortunately, the terrorist networks have ways of evading even our best technology. Rather than communicate with cell phones and transfer money electronically, they simple communicate via messengers with written notes or memorized messages. That's how they dupe our technology. What are we supposed to do with a satellite photo of a guy on a mule in the hills of northern Pakistan? How do we know he's ferrying information from Al-Qaeda's leadership?

As for Iran, a measured communication with its leadership would indeed be far more beneficial than unilateral military action. As I stated before, Ali Khameini remains open to the resumption of diplomatic ties, provided it proves beneficial to the people of Iran. If there is one universal truth about human beings, its that their economic bottom line means more than potentially divisive political or religious ideology. If we assist Iran, if we help them improve their economy, that's a far more effective message from us than further sanctions. Remember Nixon and China? Back when everyone feared a burgeoning Communist hegemony, Nixon opened a dialogue with China. For all his personal faults, his deep-seated paranoia that led him to bug Watergate, he had the makings of a great statesman. Bush has the makings of a great nothing. But for 9/11, he would have been a readily forgotten historical footnote, evoking pleasure in the flag-wavers and minor annoyance from the left. Unfortunately, the role he's been thrust into is, quite simply, beyond his capabilities. Had McCain won in 2000, we might have had a better response to the terrorists. But Bush positively trashed McCain in 2000, with his campaign even going so far as to insinuate that his black adopted daughter, Bridget, was the product of an illicit biracial affair. Calm and respectful. Most certainly NOT. The Rove political machine is the nastiest group of hate- and fearmongers this nation has ever seen.

But I've veered off course. The opening of a dialogue has absolutely had positive results. Our trade with China is an example. Thank you, President Nixon. Great statesmanship does not respect political affiliation. It remains to be seen whether Obama truly has the makings of a great statesman, but if he can do with Iran what Nixon did with China, he will go down in history as one. Prosperity breeds religious tolerance. It's easy for those of us in developed countries to say to those in undeveloped ones "be tolerant, do as WE do." People who speak and think this way neglect the fact that tolerance and "maturity" are a result of development, not an impetus for it. If we help Iran to grow as a nation and an economic power, we gain an ally in their people and even in Khameini. Ahmadinejad is merely a conservative idealogue. He's the Rush Limbaugh of Iran, a bloviating, small minded and largely inconsequential individual.

As for terrorism "reaching our shores" when was the last time Al-Qaeda pulled off a major attack? And what precisely were the effects of said attack? How likely are you, really, to die from an attack? You say I'm naive to believe that terrorists don't represent a threat to the United States. They do, but the nature of the threat has been misunderstood. They simply aren't capable of "demolishing our way of life." Terrorism is ultimately a self-defeating enterprise. The people of the Middle East are largely sick and tired of the antics of Al-Qaeda and others. Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi is largely responsible for initiating the wave of Sunni-Shia violence. Prior to the arrival of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, violence was largely targeted at Western interests, not other Muslims. But the attacks have little if any economic impact. Yes, markets have gone down with every attack, but they've been back up to pre-attack levels in increasingly short order.

Here is the fundamental flaw with your philosophy, Sonofccn. America simply doesn't have the power to fight every little problem in the Middle East. There are 400 million people in the region. And your previous statements bely an Orientalist bent in your thinking, a tendancy to consider yourself inherently superior. "We come to help you" is a hallmark of imperialist thinking. We need to help the Middle East help itself. Attacking Iran will do no such thing. You want Iran to "mature?" Well then let's help it to do so, not just demand that it do so. You want a McDonald's on every corner? Let's help them to create their own version of McDonald's which they can put wherever they wish, even on streetcorners here in the US. And let's stop reacting impulsively every time a nation or leader says something negative about the US. It's almost as if you want a totalitarian world order with America at the head, and no-one anywhere can ever say anything negative about us. Muslims who denouce our actions aren't automatically terrorists because of it. Our actions regarding much of the Middle East have indeed been marked by ignorance, shortsightedness and fear. Mohammad Mossadegh is a perfect example. We expect every country in the world to come to us. Well, with Nixon, we went to China. And look at the result? You say diplomacy is useless. I say think again.

North Korea is a bankrupt, broken shell of a nation. Rather than get a few thousand Americans killed along with god only knows how many North Koreans by fighting the KPA, why don't we do this. JMS pointed out that the biggest threat from them is that their nuclear material might fall into someone else's hands. Military action won't prevent that, because we couldn't make any military action covertly. Kim Jong Il would know we were coming, he'd know what we were coming FOR, and he'd find a way to pass it off to someone else or use it on our troops (like he'd care about the North Korean bystanders he'd kill in doing so) If we're really so concerned, our intelligence network, not the military, is what has to affect a solution. If nuclear material leaves North Korea, the Chinese will stand to lose as much as we do, being that they should be keeping a close eye on that particular hotspot. If our intelligence learns where it is, then a tactical strike, either by us or by the Chinese, is what is in order, to take out our enemies, not our enemies plus 100,000 or so innocent bystanders with yet another poorly thought out war.

Iran is the same way. If Iran manages to construct a nuclear weapon, they won't just go off and attack Israel with it. Jerusalem is as sacred to Muslims as it is to Jews, and no-one who really respects the ideology of Islam would do anything to endanger Jerusalem. Khameini certainly would never tolerate it.

What, realistically, is Ahmadinejad going to do with a nuclear weapon? "Wipe Israel off the map" is, quite simply, a media fabrication. I've provided the actual translation of his Persian phrase twice now, which comes from Arab scholar Arash Norouzi (who is a devotee of Mohammad Mossadegh, and certainly NOT an admirer of Ahmadinejad). In fact, the most frequent comparison Ahmadinejad draws is between Israel and the Soviet Union. He means that Israel's hold on the land is untenable and the regime (as he considers it) will collapse, just as the Soviet Union collapsed. The worst thing he could do with nuclear material is, again, pass it off to someone else, and a war with Iran is NOT going to prevent that, because once again, he'll know what we're coming for, and he'll pass it off before we get to it. Even blowing up the Natanz facility with a cruise missile wouldn't get all of Iran's centrifuges, and would provoke international outrage. And yes, we DO have to care what the rest of the world thinks. Increasingly, as the rest of the world becomes more wealthy, powerful, and influential, we will have to care what they think. America is a PART of the world, not ABOVE it.

Here's the thing. I advocate a stronger intelligence network, which CONSIDERS the results of its actions in the long term (instead of impulsively reacting to changing situations like Mohammad Mossadegh's desire to oust the Shah. So what if the Shah was a friend to us. He was no friend to the Iranian people.) It may be pointless to engage in speculation about "what might have been" but given that Mossadegh was a secularist and reformer, we really shot ourselves in the foot by doing what we did. In any event, my view is that our intelligence arm, not the military, needs to be conducting our counterterrorism activities. And they are. The thing with intelligence actions is that they're invisible, and everyone who advocates unilateral military action wants visible results. Well, military action won't preclude the possibility of a nuclear Al-Qaeda. Intelligence action could.

[Cocytus]

"Once again the insurgents you pin your hopes on." Read what you write. It was offensive, and I'd like that acknowledged.

If you had done that in the first place instead of quoteing the entire thing and then foaming at the mouth for two paragraphs I might have figured out what you were blathering about earlier. Second I wasn't intending to question your loyality and I'll admit poor choice of words. You still have overreacted.

Or had you simply bothered to read what you wrote in the first place, or gone back and reread your post after my initial reaction, instead of simply assuming you were right about everything.

The insurgents don't fear us as a general rule.

Possible. It hasn't been helping them through.

Through what?

The countries with which we contend aren't that afraid of us either. They know were overstretched.

If that was so we'd be seeing a lot more from the other nations.

A lot more what? Attempts to limit American influence? What do you think Putin's friendship with Ahmadinejad is intended to do? Why do you think Russian contractors are helping them build a nuclear power plant over our objections? And China doesn't need to show military defiance. We simply couldn't survive without them. Try living, even for a day, without anything that has "Made in China" stamped on it.

Three, we only provide further incentive to powers which already have nuclear weapons, like North Korea, to accelerate development. And, as JMS suggests, if Kim Jong Il "let one slip through his fingers," the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction goes out the window.

Which is why you need to prevent them from obtaining the bloody things in the first place.

By doing what? Taking unilateral military action against any nation that declares its intention to construct nuclear weapons? That makes us into an agressor and deepens the resolve of the people who hate us.

But our tactics are outdated. We can't follow the insurgents through the wall of citizens, unless the citizens point out where they are. And many are simply afraid to. We're limited to neighborhood door-to-door searches, which are time-consuming and frequently fruitless. All they really engender is resentment and fear on the parts of those who get their doors kicked down. Our technology is improving. The latest generation of APCs have triangular armored undercarriages which funnel IED blasts out to the side. But the tactics remain unsuited to the current situation. If we're serious about maintaining a prolonged military presense in the Middle East, one which requires a neighborhood presence rather than an isolated base, we need to train our troops in the language and customs of the region. They'll be better able to serve both the needs of the Iraqis and the goals of the United States. Our intelligence arm is underserved. Remember when we got Zarqawi? We only found out where he was because Jordanian agents (who speak the language) told us where he was. And luckily, we happened to have a pair of F16s in the immediate vicinity. The citizens adopting a more friendly attitude towards us is nice, but the language barrier is a serious problem. The Iraqi government doesn't know the insurgents' precise locations, only their general area (as in Sadr City). The insurgents hide out in neighborhoods, where they either kill innocent bystanders or get us to kill innocent bystanders. And the innocent bystanders are tired of it. The more we can communicate directly with them, the more we can root out and destroy the insurgency, rather than simply move them around (as in from Iraq back to Afghanistan)

That's it? Your brilliant new age tactic is to teach soldiers Arabic, I think that is what they speak in Iraq. I can see the usefulness but that's hardly a game changer.

I'm advocating a better intelligence network. And no, it wouldn't hurt to have our soldiers be able to respond directly to the people.

How many don't know who is a Sunni and who is a Shiite? A foreknowledge of the culture would have helped us better wage the war in Iraq.

I'm not against soldiers being briefed on the local inhabinets, but I think they already do stuff like that.

Excellent, if they do so. That's certainly a start.

Afghanistan.

Yes because Afghanistan been surged by the insurgents naturaly Iraq will decend. You have any proof that the two were at similar stages of stability when Afghanistan got surged.

If Iraq maintains its stability, it will be because the Iraqis themselves wanted it. Strangely, Zarqawi turned Al-Qaeda (a Sunni organization) against the Shiites which, while it intensified violence, largely distracted them from operations against the United States. But in any event, Al-Sadr is still entrenched in his little section of Baghdad. Since he's a Shiite, and the government is Shiite, if he can be brought into the fold, and his militia assimilated into the Iraqi army, that would be a great way to neutralize him. Of course, we'd lose the opportunity to kill someone we label a terrorist. As for Afghanistan, things were looking pretty promising for a while. Many tribal warlords were had allied with the Northern Alliance, which had put forth Hamid Karzai as the Interim President. They ratified a constitution, elected a president, and set about establishing a government. But we never rid them of the Taliban. We thought things were getting better, and we looked away to soon.

But they are in power, and we have to deal with that. The only solution you present is more military expenditure. There has to be something beyond just occupation. There has to be a cultural dialogue, or we'll forever regard the other side as "dangerous aliens."

There is dialoge. We talked to the Iraqies after we cumbstumped Saddam. I don't understand where you keep getting this ignorant, dumb American image from. Do we fully understand every nuance of all cultures? Not by a longshot, but we do try and figure out what mess is around us. Also it's not an occupation. We are allied to the Iraqi goverment, who depsite eager to point out that we will be leaving, are not quite ready for us to leave just yet.

I keep getting it, in all honesty, from people like you, who act ignorant and dumb. Whose attitude is, every time there's a problem in the world, "Well, let's tally-ho on over there and open up a can of whoop-ass, yeeeehaw."

Khameini himself said he is not averse to potential resumption of diplomatic ties provide we meet certain conditions. Which is only reasonable.

His conditions are not. Since his nation has been at war with ours since the 70s he doesn't deserve conditions.

Keep that up. That'll help us solve problems.

We have our conditions, they have theirs. The main issue for the majority of Iranians is the economy. If we provide, for example, some economic assistance to the country, we can win friends among its people.

The let's be friends plan of diplomacy will get you shot, dragged through a street and beheaded. Iran should not, and can not, be given a red cent until they have abandoned thier mad nuclear quest, stopped all terroist funding worldwide, and quite chanting death to certain countries.

Or, it will initiate a dialogue between our respective sovereign nations and avoid a lot of unnecessary bloodshed.

Khameini is a strict Islamist, but Islam has at its heart the acceptance of other "people of the book." He knows that. He's studied his own religion. If we offer them an incentive to open a dialogue, that's a start, which is more than you offer us.

Historicaly "people of the book" were given third class status. I don't call that acceptance nor is it a good idea to give gifts freely to your enemies.

People of the book have been allowed their freedom of religion. Admittedly, it degenerated in the Ottoman Empire, as everything did during its final decline. But look at major Muslim centers like Cordoba during the Umayyad Caliphate under Abdul Rahman III. It was the virtual center of civilization, and Jews and Christians were hardly treated as third class citizens.

The Shah of Iran was oppressive. He did away with a multi-party system, took political prisoners, used torture and spent lavishly on himself while villagers suffered.

I didn't say he was perfect. I said I was for negoations, wow why I am the one aruging for negoations, between the Shah and the people of Iran.

Arguing for negotiations between the people of Iran, and the leader they hate who is an American puppet. Gee, it sure sounds like the Iranians would get a fair deal out of that, doesn't it?

The subsequent Islamic Republic restored the multi-party system. The Revolution was the will of the Iranian people. You can't advocate democratic systems and then complain when they don't produce the result YOU want.

I'm all for democratic systems, and would have loved to slowly evolve Iran to one over the years. What we got instead was the appearnce of one ruled behind the curtain by the mullahs and an enemy who has been attacking us for the past 30 years. Everyone is intitled to thier choice, but you have to accept the ramifiactions of yoru actions. If you elected a homocidal maniac you can't pout when we smash you.

Well, apparently you're not for democratic systems, since all democracies must be subservient to the United States. And what attacks has Iran launched on the United States over the last 30 years? Enlighten me. The only war I can think of is the 1980-88 Iran Iraq war, in which Iran was INVADED BY Iraq.

I recall another revolution that was the will of the people. A great power sought to squash it. It happened in 1776

If Iran has formed a free and open and benovlent society I wouldn't be complaining. They became a deranged enemy of liberty. If you disagree then I ask you if you would like to live in Iran.

Why don't we both go live there? Iran's society has been making strides towards modernization. Certainly, it has met with some resistance from the religiously conservative (you know, kinda like abortion and gay rights here in the US. Funny that) Iranian media is subject to an office of censorship, but they nevertheless have a booming media and film industry which frequently exports to other countries. Iran is not perfectly free by any stretch of the imagination, but its people are not enemies of the United States.

Better how? For what? For Whom? Qualify that statement.

Lets see S. Korea is a thriving democratic society. N. Korea is a hellhole, a bad hellhole where starvation is omnipresent. France and Russia? I don't know when was the last time France invaded a neighore? If you can't see it you need your eyes adjusted.

Uhh, 1956. France, Britain and Israel invaded Egypt. And Georgia invaded South Ossetia prior to being invaded itself.

Hamas is better for the Palestinians than we are.

Correction. Hamas is what they want. Hamas will keep them enslaved to thier hatreds living in squalor while mayrting themselves against the only civilisation in the area that actually has thrived in that terrible region. We are better for them, teach them to build something instead of tearing everythign down.

Israel has us on their side. Of course they've thrived. And we supported Fatah against Hamas in the elections, merely becase we don't consider Fatah a terrorist organization, even though they fund the Al-Aqsah Martyrs brigade.

Again, don't advocate democracy and then complain when it doesn't produce the result YOU want. It produced the result THEY wanted. That's democracy.

Responability for one's actions is at the heart of democracy. They chose wrongly and they need to be shown the correct path. The one that doesn't involve centuries of hate.

Okay. 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of our actions. That's our responsibility. How about this. We helped the Afghan Mujahideen oppose the Soviets, and they later morphed into the Taliban. That's our responsibility. We helped Saddam Hussein for much the same reason, and look what he became. Our responsibility. So I'll ask you, just what do we know of the "correct path." Hmm?

As for your "centuries of hate" claim, you do know the Islamic Empire was the virtual pinnacle of civilization while Europe was wallowing in the Dark Ages, don't you? Their hatred of us stems largely from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the failures of the Pan-Arabic movement, and the forced establishment of Israel. The Six-Day war is known in Arabic as Al-Nakbah, literally "the Catastrophe." That's where the majority of their hatred and mistrust of us comes from.

And I ask you, just how morally superior are we? Waterboarding, military tribunals, blatant neglect of our own rules of law and those of the world community?

Compared to the world? We are saints. Compared to utopia? We're not so much. Anway waterboarding is a joke. We done it what to three terrorists? All navy seals have to do it, people will do it to themselves to prove a point but for some reason refuse to undergo what Saddam used to do to his prisoners. Military Tribunals? Could that be that we are at war perhaps. Blatant neglect of our own rules, which ones? Please list them.

So the rule of law goes right out the window in wartime? We are no saints. The Russians had the KGB, we've got the CIA. We remain the only country to have used nuclear weapons on another.

And I invite you to try waterboarding sometime.

America used to be a model to live by. Now we've proven we will sink as low as we need to to get our way. I love America, but I'm ashamed of the direction it has taken.

No we could sink much lower. We could sink to the depths of human sewage and act like our enemy, but we don't. We are better then they are and if you don't like it that our boots are perfectly flawless then you do not understand how this world works. I am not ashamed in the path my country has taken, I would have done much, much worse.

"I would have done much, much worse"

WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY YOU NEED TO STAY AS FAR AWAY FROM GOVERNMENT AS POSSIBLE.

Read what I wrote. Khameini appoints HALF the Guardian Council. And the mere fact that Khatami won is proof of Iranian thirst for more democracy.

I consider half a nice size fraction of the guardian council. So I ask who apponts the other half.
I'm glad the Iranians want more democracy, more power to them. They still have been a threat for 30 years. It is hopeful thinking at best that they will change with the next election and time to act is running out.

Uh huh. So is Bush's. He better hurry up and declare war.

If they can oust Khameini, more power to them. If not, we have to deal with Khameini. We can do that by adopting a less confrontational stance

I could just see you back in the 30's. All we need to do is talk to Hitler. I'm sure he will be reasonable. Afterall the Germans elected him!

Iran today is not Germany in the 1930s. Germany had suffered a defeat in World War I, been plundered by the Allied powers in the Treaty of Versailles, and turned to Hitler for the restoration of their pride. Iran has not been dealt any major defeat, it is simply a developing country anxious to gain increased recognition on the world stage. It's military budget is less that 1/100th the size of ours. They simply don't have the resources to construct a dedicated war machine, unlike Germany which was, and remains to this day, a major economic power.

You speak Persian, do you?

Nope. Of course in todays global age translators exist. I don't need to speak it.

No, you can just listen to the media who GOT IT WRONG.

We'll just have to disagree on this point. Nuclear power is the will of the Iranian people (not necessarily nuclear weapons, though there is a subset of the population that wants them.) So, if it's the will of the people, what's your problem? That's the democracy you say you champion.

There is no peaceful reason for Iran to have nuclear power. They are afloat on oil afterall. Two the whole you can't be trusted witht he nuclear weapons bit is what I have trouble with. If they voted to destroy Israel I would object despite it being democarcy. The system is not flawless or perfect it is just the best we have. People have to be allowed to make thier own mistakes but we can't allow them to hurt others for it.

There's plenty of reason for Iran to have nuclear power if their use of it is peaceful. Or, by your logic, there's no reason for us to have nuclear power. The world's largest reserves of coal and oil shale are right here in the US.

And your plan is, what? Let's simply attack whomever we wish and pray to God that doesn't deepen Arab suspicion and denouncement of the US and further their efforts to acquire nuclear materials?

I'm for negoations with the forwarning that the military will come in to fix the mess if we don't leave the table happy. That means the points we say are not negotable are not negotable.

Wait, so your plan is, after all your screaming at me, to talk to Iran?

Pakistan is unstable enough, and they're nuclear already. I'd be more worried about one of their warheads going missing

I am worried about Pakistan but let's not add to our troubles shall we?

I agree wholeheartedly. So let's take a measured, intelligent response to Iran and not just go and attack them.

The kid metaphor was yours to begin with. And Iran did improve their situation. They replaced a despotic American puppet with a government more in line with their own views. quote]I never called them kids. The Iranians questionably improved thier situation replacing a secular despot with a religious despot.

Thier country is in the pits and has been a thorn in our side for decades.

No, you suggested we treat them like kids by "showing them the way," telling them to "mature" etc. Like a parental lecture. But even if Iran is analagous to a rambunctious teenager, the more you deny them something, the more they will want it.

Anyway, the Revolution was an improvement over the Shah. They've got a ways to go. And we can either help them get there or send them back to the dark ages with an all-out military attack.

Now, if they can elect the Grand Ayatollah, that would be a real improvement. But I'm curious, what is wrong with us showing an act of faith?

We have shown plenty of faith by continuing negoations with these indivials. We asked nicely, Europe has spent years trying to talk to them. They have taken eveyr olive branch and caste it aside as not good enough.

We haven't shown faith. We've made demands and we tried to bribe them.

Regardless of whether the locals like McDonald's or not.

What's not to like? Fast food, cold drinks great french fries. I can't see anything wrong with that.

Eat McDonald's for a year. See what happens. Personally I like a little variety in my meals.

Black and White=Simple Minded. They're synonymous.

No they arn't. Simple minded=nuanced. It is your worldview that sees everything the same, the thought that some people, ideas or thoughts are better seems beyond your understanding.

Hoo boy. A black and white position is the very antonym of nuance. A nuance is a subtle distinction. What is subtle about black and white? They're polar opposites.

By the way, the dictionary definition of "nuance" is "a slight variation in color or tone." Kind of shoots your assertion through the heart, doesn't it. Black and white DOES NOT EQUAL nuanced.

Moral my ass. "Kill or be killed," that's your moral guideline. And you admit your position lacks usefulness. Concession accepted.

I meant uselessness and you know it. Now back to Moral. Yes it allows me to understand on a very basic level how N. Korea is worse then S. Korea. It also explains why WE don't indiscrimently kill people unlike our enemies. Your stuck pretending Kim Jong IL is the same as the current German leader and you can treat them the same.

There is nothing moral in your position. Moral people don't preach to others about being moral, they live moral lives themselves. A priest on a diatribe about the immorality of homosexuality is not moral. A person who is willing to fight a despot by being just as vicious, cruel, and murderous is not moral.

My God. You don't see what you're saying? We seek to spread democracy, so why should we care what the people think? HELLO?

You base your entire thing on what other people think of us. It's irrelevent. The EU has a high hatred of America but I don't think any of them are going to start a shooting war over it. I am all for people understanding who and what we are but I will not change policies based upon the whim of nonamericans.

No it is not irrelevant. The opinion of the rest of the world does matter. The opinion of the people doesn't matter to a despot. And from what I gather, you're suggesting America be the world's despot.

Pakistan is already sick of us wantonly violating their sovereign borders. For them, sovereignty is more important tha US relations. And they are a nuclear power.

If they weren't sheperding terrorists we wouldn't need to. The fault lies with them.

"They." There you go again. I might as well say "all Americans are fat, ingorant, inbred, hatemongering farm-boy redneck trash" Would it be true? No. It's not even true of all Republicans.

The Pakistani government is trying to help us root terrorists out of the Waziristan region. I suppose you'd just have us nuke Waziristan. We'd kill the terrorists, and about 800,000 innocent locals.

I doubt they would openly assist Iran, but if some conservative elements in the Pakistani government "accidentally" let a warhead slip through their fingers, whom would we nuke in response?

I'm going to need a little more evidence then Pakistan is upset with border violations before I'd accept hte possiblity that they would deliberatly hand over a nuke.

Read the news. "The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all costs."--General Ashfaq Parvaz Kayani.

Pakistan complained vociferously to our ambassador to Islamabad not long ago. We need to maintain the alliance with Pakistan. That means while we're in their country, we follow their rules.

Do we just carpet-nuke the Waziristan region?

WHile effective it isn't in us to kill so many people for no reason.

I wonder. You've already admitted you'd do "much much worse."

The Palestinians are not the Nazis.

A genocidal cult is a genocidal cult. Hamas is a threat to an ally and is a morally bankrupt party.

Morally bankrupt parties don't build hospitals and orphanages for Palestinians. That information comes from an Israeli scholar, by the way. We've kind of abandoned our "roadmap to peace" Bush was talking about.

What Hitler gave the Germans was a sense of national pride. Hamas does not have the resources or manpower to build a dedicated war machine.

Just because thier pathic at it doesn't change the fact that they are an evil smear on humanity.

We've been more than content to help evil smears on humanity when we thought it furthered our ends.

They may be a terrorist organization to us, but to the Palestinians they're a help. It's the right choice as far as the Palestinians are currently concerned. History will decide whether its beneficial in the long run.

You don't need history. Hamas preaches the same old slogan that has been preached in the middle east since the 40's. They breed hate and vileness indoctriantiong thier people to attack innocent civilians who have done them no harm.

Oh no. A failure to learn from history is precisely why we keep screwing up. And the US has killed more than its fair share of innocent civilians who did no harm to us.

Let's be crystal clear here. YOU HAVE NO MORAL STANDING WHATSOEVER. You proved that in spades right here:

I would have done much, much worse.

I tried to smooth relations with my previous post, which unfortunately was made at the same time you spewed your latest hateful spiel. Thank god you're not in politics. Anyways, just ignore any conciliatory tone I might have adopted in my previous post.

[sonofccn]

Or had you simply bothered to read what you wrote in the first place, or gone back and reread your post after my initial reaction, instead of simply assuming you were right about everything.

I did reread the blasted thing, but these posts are quite long and you didn't exactly do anything to help. I found a similar line in the text and assumed it was what you were refering to. You still overeacted assuming a meaning I didn't mean to convey.

Through what?

They don't fear us yet it hasn't brought them victory. At best the game is still tied if not tilting in our favor.

A lot more what? Attempts to limit American influence? What do you think Putin's friendship with Ahmadinejad is intended to do? Why do you think Russian contractors are helping them build a nuclear power plant over our objections?

I am aware of the behind closed doors stuff russia, china etc do. If they didn't fear the military they would do things directly. Minus the US the world would shift to the old ways in a matter of heartbeats.

And China doesn't need to show military defiance. We simply couldn't survive without them. Try living, even for a day, without anything that has "Made in China" stamped on it.

We use china because thier cheap, should that stop being so in the case of a war something else would fill the void. That's free market 101. Second China wishes to be a Superpower and has repeatedly demanded Tiawian , by force if need be. So far the only thing holding them back is our promise to defend them.

By doing what? Taking unilateral military action against any nation that declares its intention to construct nuclear weapons?

The first step would be to negoiate. Once that fails some military strike would be in order yes.

That makes us into an agressor and deepens the resolve of the people who hate us.

They already hate us. By being nice they won't stop hating us.

I'm advocating a better intelligence network. And no, it wouldn't hurt to have our soldiers be able to respond directly to the people.

All I saw was advocating making learing Arabric manditory. I'm all for a better intelligence network.

If Iraq maintains its stability, it will be because the Iraqis themselves wanted it.

Well duh. We can't protect them for all time. The point is we protected them and nurtured them until they were strong enough to start taking things back under thier control.

Strangely, Zarqawi turned Al-Qaeda (a Sunni organization) against the Shiites

If I'm remembering correctly it wasn't strangly. It was a cacluted ploy to fragment Iraq. Thankfully it hasn't appeared to have worked.

But in any event, Al-Sadr is still entrenched in his little section of Baghdad. Since he's a Shiite, and the government is Shiite, if he can be brought into the fold, and his militia assimilated into the Iraqi army, that would be a great way to neutralize him.

From what I've heard his forces have been rendered toothless but if he's willing to play ball, for the moment I have no qualms using him.

As for Afghanistan, things were looking pretty promising for a while. Many tribal warlords were had allied with the Northern Alliance, which had put forth Hamid Karzai as the Interim President. They ratified a constitution, elected a president, and set about establishing a government. But we never rid them of the Taliban. We thought things were getting better, and we looked away to soon.

I"m not sure how we looked away. Did we shrink the troops(of whatever we ever had there) deployed in afghanistan or something?

I keep getting it, in all honesty, from people like you, who act ignorant and dumb. Whose attitude is, every time there's a problem in the world, "Well, let's tally-ho on over there and open up a can of whoop-ass, yeeeehaw."

It's better then the other side whose response to any problem is "What could America have done to anger you."

Or, it will initiate a dialogue between our respective sovereign nations and avoid a lot of unnecessary bloodshed.

Nope. No historical evidence to support that idea. Believing the other side is rational and truly wants peace in the world is the road to ruin.

People of the book have been allowed their freedom of religion.

Under strict control of thier overlords. Thier religion was tolerated and suppressed as much as possible.

It was the virtual center of civilization, and Jews and Christians were hardly treated as third class citizens.

I consider having to pay a special tax for being a christian and not being able to build a church if I wanted too evidence for below equal status.

Arguing for negotiations between the people of Iran, and the leader they hate who is an American puppet. Gee, it sure sounds like the Iranians would get a fair deal out of that, doesn't it?

I'd simply want to offer them a solution that prevents bloodshed and keeps Iran from turning into an enemy.

Well, apparently you're not for democratic systems, since all democracies must be subservient to the United States.

???? I didn't say subservient. Not wanting to kill us is my general line in the sand. Do not put words in my mouth. I hold Europe up as examples constantly and they are most definetly not subservient to the US.

And what attacks has Iran launched on the United States over the last 30 years? Enlighten me. The only war I can think of is the 1980-88 Iran Iraq war, in which Iran was INVADED BY Iraq.

You are unaware that Iran funds the likes of Hamas and such? That they have bene waging a freaking terriorst war against us since Carter allowed them to power?

Why don't we both go live there? Iran's society has been making strides towards modernization. Certainly, it has met with some resistance from the religiously conservative (you know, kinda like abortion and gay rights here in the US. Funny that)

Not even close. In America we are arguing if homosexuals can be allowed to have a marriage instead of secular union. In Iran the debate is how to kill them. Anyway I'm all for progress, I applaud every step they take towards sanity. I will not however risk my country or the stabity of the world on a few relativly minor measures.

Iranian media is subject to an office of censorship, but they nevertheless have a booming media and film industry which frequently exports to other countries. Iran is not perfectly free by any stretch of the imagination, but its people are not enemies of the United States

It's goverment is and has been for years.

Uhh, 1956. France, Britain and Israel invaded Egypt.

Hmm involving ISrael, are you sure Egypt maybe didn't try and wipe them off hte map again, like the middle easter countries are won't to do.

And Georgia invaded South Ossetia prior to being invaded itself.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong. South Ossetia is part, or was, of Georgia. The Russians, no doubt evily chuckling, supplied Ossetia with weapons and told them to raise hell. Georgia sent troops in to stablize a rebellious section of thier own country and Russia blitzed in. It was all part of a prepared plan. You can fault Georgia for not seeing the trap but it was a trap.

Israel has us on their side. Of course they've thrived.

It's also the only middle eastern nation not floating on oil. Yet all other nations are dustheaps of poverty and golden palaces. Isreal however is a beacon of normality in an otherwise insane region.

And we supported Fatah against Hamas in the elections, merely becase we don't consider Fatah a terrorist organization, even though they fund the Al-Aqsah Martyrs brigade.

Did I say we were perfect or incapble of error? I support neither party.

Okay. 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of our actions.

As a result of the insurgents that killed them. Never blame the cop for what the crinimal does. That's just backwards thinking.

We helped the Afghan Mujahideen oppose the Soviets, and they later morphed into the Taliban.

So we did something increadble nice, saved them from being absorbed into the soviet empire, and then allowed them to form whatever goverment they wanted and they formed the Taliban. Doesn't that shoot your let's be nice theroy down?

That's our responsibility. We helped Saddam Hussein for much the same reason, and look what he became.

Become? He was a slagger when we supported him. We all knew it but deemed he was useful. I never claimed we didn't have dirt on us.

So I'll ask you, just what do we know of the "correct path." Hmm?

We avoided the pitfalls that have plauged the rest of the world so that's something. We make mistakes, we are not infaible. We are only human but I'd rather do something and fail then cower in the corner wallowing in self-pity.

As for your "centuries of hate" claim, you do know the Islamic Empire was the virtual pinnacle of civilization while Europe was wallowing in the Dark Ages, don't you?

If one can only be the virtual pijnnacle of civilzation when your competitor has more or less abandoned it, that is not a accomplishment. The Islamic empire was more conduit to the various other entities around it, absorbing what was useful and using it. They had thier advancers, giving credit were credit is due, but have long since stagnated. Three the hate I speak off goes all the wya back to the beganing. Let's just say thier dislike of Jewish people extends farther then the creation of Isreal.

That's where the majority of their hatred and mistrust of us comes from.

Not by a long shot.

So the rule of law goes right out the window in wartime?

I asked for a list. This isn't a list.

We are no saints.

Compared to every other nation on this Earth we are. We are far from perfect but we generaly strive to do the right thing and have far fewer sins attached to our history.

The Russians had the KGB, we've got the CIA.

The CIA is not on the same level as the KGB. The KGB were a secret police that could and would snatch you out of hte night. If the CIA was the KGB you would have been picked up long ago for anti-proper thoughts. You haven't and the CIA isn't.

We remain the only country to have used nuclear weapons on another.

We used them to save American and Japanese lives and put to end a brutal regime.

And I invite you to try waterboarding sometime

I'm sure it's quite unpleasent. I, being a rational person, see no need to do it. If however I had a choice between gonig into Saddam's torture chamber or being water boarded I would take the water smiling.

WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY YOU NEED TO STAY AS FAR AWAY FROM GOVERNMENT AS POSSIBLE.

I would agree with your assesment. however I am slightly hurt, you don't even know what I was going to do and you scream this at me? I'm hurt.

Uh huh. So is Bush's. He better hurry up and declare war

So you have no reply and throw out a weak jab. Funny.

Iran has not been dealt any major defeat, it is simply a developing country anxious to gain increased recognition on the world stage. It's military budget is less that 1/100th the size of ours

It doesn't need to, the madmen are already in power. Also was it not you aruging that insurgents were the wave of the further, which Iran trains, arms and delivers to such exotic places as ....Iraq!

There's plenty of reason for Iran to have nuclear power if their use of it is peaceful. Or, by your logic, there's no reason for us to have nuclear power. The world's largest reserves of coal and oil shale are right here in the US.

Which I would love to be able to use. Speak to congress. Now back to Iran. It's a terrorist sponsoring nation embarking ont he long expensive project to build nuclear technolagy and posseses no restraints that I am aware of using the far cheaper oil literaly sitting beneath your feet. It is a nation with Anti-American goals. The odds that it wants them for peaceful purpuses are virtually nil. If we can not agree Iran should not have this I'm afraid any further discussion is hopeless.

Wait, so your plan is, after all your screaming at me, to talk to Iran?

Not quite. Notice the word first. You said any nation that suddenly wants to build an A-Bomb. The first thing we should do is talk to them as I have stated multiple times on these posts. Iran has been talked to and has refused to listen to reason. If conditions changed I would gladly continue negoations but only assuming they have met preconditions.

I agree wholeheartedly. So let's take a measured, intelligent response to Iran and not just go and attack them.

That ends up with a nuclear Iran who might nuke Isreal, which might start a nuclear arms race in the middle east, which might deliberatly or accidently lose one to a terrorist cell, or might fire one off of a frieghtor like we believe they have been experimenting with. I don't consider that measured, or intelligent. I'd rather use the threat of war to bring them back to the table.

No, you suggested we treat them like kids by "showing them the way," telling them to "mature" etc. Like a parental lecture. But even if Iran is analagous to a rambunctious teenager, the more you deny them something, the more they will want it.

I suggested treating them in accordence to how they are acting. If you feel the kid description is accurate I am not going to complain.

Anyway, the Revolution was an improvement over the Shah. They've got a ways to go.

Not from where I'm sitting. They still have someone controlling the scenes, and despite thirty years are as bad off as they were if not worse.

We haven't shown faith. We've made demands and we tried to bribe them.

We have tried talking to them. We have one goal to keep them from possesing nuclear weapons. We have had no success, but I am sure your idea of Faith would be to let them build one and see if they used it or not.

Eat McDonald's for a year. See what happens. Personally I like a little variety in my meals

Who said you couldn't have variety. You stated wither they liked McDonalds or not. I'm asking what could you have against Mcdonalds or any fast food chain. What is wrong with spreading walmarts and Mcdonalds to other nations?

Hoo boy. A black and white position is the very antonym of nuance.

What? I said simple minded equals your Nuanced world view. Which it is. A nuanced worldview removes all the world real complexities and you don't have to worry about who's right and who's wrong because to you everyone is wrong.

There is nothing moral in your position. Moral people don't preach to others about being moral,

A moral person must try to sway people to his side of thinking. What moral person could sit back allow slavery to exist? My positions has morals that tell me right from wrong. That's the black and white part. SOmetimes you can't act on it of course with the world and choose the lesser of two evils. That's the grey bit. Your position deems all side equally grey.

A person who is willing to fight a despot by being just as vicious, cruel, and murderous is not moral.

The people that person freed might beg to differ with you.

No it is not irrelevant. The opinion of the rest of the world does matter. The opinion of the people doesn't matter to a despot. And from what I gather, you're suggesting America be the world's despot.

Why is it relevent what France thinks of us? What is it revelent what Russia thinks of us? They don't like us for various reasons and being nice to them sure won't change that. If you can be nice and perform what needs to be done I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with stopping a sane plan because of what someother country thinks of it.

No I do not want America to rule over the world, or atleast I wasn't preaching that. We are for better or worse this world's police force. We are tasked with keeping it safe as best we can. Your inablity to tell the differnce between countries doesn't not help your argument.

"They." There you go again. I might as well say "all Americans are fat, ingorant, inbred, hatemongering farm-boy redneck trash" Would it be true? No. It's not even true of all Republicans.

Watch it! I have tried to be nice but do not throw another Republican barb. Now we were talking about Pakistan in the abstract sense, you sure didn't mention any names that I recall. Now it is my understanding that while the goverment is technicalyon our side, it's people support the Jihad. That does not change that by actions or inactions on part of Pakistan we have to perform certian actions.

The Pakistani government is trying to help us root terrorists out of the Waziristan region. I suppose you'd just have us nuke Waziristan. We'd kill the terrorists, and about 800,000 innocent locals.

What part of I'm against that is not sinking in?

Read the news. "The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all costs."--General Ashfaq Parvaz Kayani.

Pakistan complained vociferously to our ambassador to Islamabad not long ago. We need to maintain the alliance with Pakistan. That means while we're in their country, we follow their rules.

Once again they complain of border issues and then would aid Iran in a fight because.....? If the alliance with Pakistan isn't bearing useful fruit,which us having to cross over to get the job done, maybe the alliance needs further work. What would be required to get them more effective to do thier job.

I wonder. You've already admitted you'd do "much much worse."

To those at gitmo, combatents. I have never offered, suggested or condoned a massive nuclear strike aimed at civilians that did not posses clear military targets and even then it would have to be something big to warrent risking innocent life.

I'm a crummy person don't get me wrong but I do not believe is wanton destruction. I don't understand how you can jump from saying I would do worse then the kid glove stuff we handle the terrorist with to nuking innocent people.

Morally bankrupt parties don't build hospitals and orphanages for Palestinians. That information comes from an Israeli scholar, by the way. We've kind of abandoned our "roadmap to peace" Bush was talking about.

Hitler built the autovan or whatever it's called. That does not make what they preach okay nor do I have much expectations of a strong viberant nation in thier future.

We've been more than content to help evil smears on humanity when we thought it furthered our ends.

So has every other nation. So your sayingit's okay to be evil? That we shouldn't try to clean up the mess?

Oh no. A failure to learn from history is precisely why we keep screwing up. And the US has killed more than its fair share of innocent civilians who did no harm to us.

I was refering in the context of waiting another ten or so years while they keep sending suicid bombers.

Let's be crystal clear here. YOU HAVE NO MORAL STANDING WHATSOEVER. You proved that in spades right here:

I obviously have some morals. I can still see evil when it's ifront of me. You just pretend it doesn't exist.

tried to smooth relations with my previous post, which unfortunately was made at the same time you spewed your latest hateful spiel.

Your previous post was being nice? Considering you have been screaming and yelling at me since post 1 I think I've been quite tolerant of you. I certainly didn't spit hate like you claimed.

In the end Coytus I can not agree,undertand or anyting else with your position. I'm ending this little waste of data right now.

[2046]

Popping in again for some brief procrastination:

Unilateral military action without the approval of the world community further comfirms the notion that America is a rogue state intent on policing the world. The police have to follow the law just as everyone else, and furthermore, the police still have to follow the law when combating those who don't. We cannot simply abandon the law when it becomes inconvenient.

At no point in recent memory has the United States engaged in unilateral military action without approval of the world community. Many nations sailed with us toward Afghanistan in that iconic photograph, for instance, and Iraq was receiving more and more severe UN censure for years prior to our invasion, and the language of the resolutions was consistent with UN language of military response.

(If I remember correctly WILGA has a different interpretation of the related UN resolutions that is inconsistent with history, but I find his argument invalid.)

If there is one universal truth about human beings, its that their economic bottom line means more than potentially divisive political or religious ideology.

This is often true, but it is wrong to call it a universal truth. Were it a universal truth, there would have been no near-misses regarding nuclear war during the Cold War. Were it a universal truth, North Korea would not abrogate agreements regarding nuclear activities and let us keep sending them their payoff. Were it a universal truth, Iran would seek to evade sanctions rather than invite them.

If we assist Iran, if we help them improve their economy, that's a far more effective message from us than further sanctions.

"We are pussies who will give you stuff if you scare us" is not an effective message. It's like a reverse of the old tribute system.

The Rove political machine is the nastiest group of hate- and fearmongers this nation has ever seen.

Exceeded only by the leftists who have created an imaginary demon complete with his imaginary crimes.

As for terrorism "reaching our shores" when was the last time Al-Qaeda pulled off a major attack? And what precisely were the effects of said attack? How likely are you, really, to die from an attack? You say I'm naive to believe that terrorists don't represent a threat to the United States. They do, but the nature of the threat has been misunderstood. They simply aren't capable of "demolishing our way of life." Terrorism is ultimately a self-defeating enterprise. The people of the Middle East are largely sick and tired of the antics of Al-Qaeda and others. Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi is largely responsible for initiating the wave of Sunni-Shia violence. Prior to the arrival of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, violence was largely targeted at Western interests, not other Muslims. But the attacks have little if any economic impact. Yes, markets have gone down with every attack, but they've been back up to pre-attack levels in increasingly short order.

Terrorism, anti-American extremism from without and within, and anti-capitalist extremism are existential threats to the American way of life.

It is a capital mistake to dismiss or ignore any of those. It is one thing to disagree on tactics and strategy, but if you don't even understand the problem then I find it difficult to have a dialog.

We've seen the lightning strike the pole repeatedly, and we've seen what it does to the poll and life around it. Saying it's self-defeating and not a big deal and thus we should carry the poll around with us during thunderstorms is just alarming.

America simply doesn't have the power to fight every little problem in the Middle East.

We don't want to.

North Korea is a bankrupt, broken shell of a nation. Rather than get a few thousand Americans killed along with god only knows how many North Koreans by fighting the KPA, why don't we do this. JMS pointed out that the biggest threat from them is that their nuclear material might fall into someone else's hands. Military action won't prevent that, because we couldn't make any military action covertly. Kim Jong Il would know we were coming, he'd know what we were coming FOR, and he'd find a way to pass it off to someone else or use it on our troops (like he'd care about the North Korean bystanders he'd kill in doing so) If we're really so concerned, our intelligence network, not the military, is what has to affect a solution. If nuclear material leaves North Korea, the Chinese will stand to lose as much as we do, being that they should be keeping a close eye on that particular hotspot. If our intelligence learns where it is, then a tactical strike, either by us or by the Chinese, is what is in order, to take out our enemies, not our enemies plus 100,000 or so innocent bystanders with yet another poorly thought out war.

That's precisely what Israel did when the North Koreans were trying to help Syria with nuclear development, and years before that when the French were helping Iraq.

It is also precisely what people want us or the Israelis to do regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions.

I thought that was what you've been arguing against the whole time.

If Iran manages to construct a nuclear weapon, they won't just go off and attack Israel with it.

Better be sure. I'm certainly not. And I rather doubt the Israelis are either.

Mahmoud claims that Islam is embroiled in a war with the West that has been going on for hundreds of years. You really think that with that mentality he doesn't view nuclear weaponry as his own Manhattan Project to win the war?

Jerusalem is as sacred to Muslims as it is to Jews, and no-one who really respects the ideology of Islam would do anything to endanger Jerusalem. Khameini certainly would never tolerate it.

Israel is more than Jerusalem.

What, realistically, is Ahmadinejad going to do with a nuclear weapon? "Wipe Israel off the map" is, quite simply, a media fabrication. I've provided the actual translation of his Persian phrase twice now, which comes from Arab scholar Arash Norouzi (who is a devotee of Mohammad Mossadegh, and certainly NOT an admirer of Ahmadinejad).

All 15 members of the UN Security Council disagreed . . . so much for your notion of the international community's opinion as guide to right and wrong.

The precise phrasing is largely irrelevant. Wiping Israel off the map does suggest a more giddily genocidal bent to the comments, but alternate translations such as "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history" are no less troublesome. Per the speech we also know that the occupying regime they refuse to recognize (i.e. the nation of Israel) is called the principal target of the Ayatollah. "The Islamic people cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world."

Altogether, that implies an Islamic reconquista, a call for an end to the enemy's existence, and so on. It certainly leaves the door open for genocide, which is somewhat better than just saying "that Holocaust idea kicks ass!", but still. Were I an Israeli I'd be damned before I even let that glint in Mahmoud's eye get anywhere.

If you want to split hairs over Farsi you go right ahead, but there's no mistaking the madman tone and threatening nature of the statements.

Here's the thing. I advocate a stronger intelligence network, which CONSIDERS the results of its actions in the long term

We tried that sort of thing in the 50's and 60's. Pissed off a lot of folks, making our standing in the world go down, and so on and so forth and all the other usual attacks on Bush policies regarding international opinions.

That said, I also favor a stronger intelligence branch as a non-military-but-still-screwing-your-shit-up part of our foreign policy. But I get there from a different place than you.

[Cocytus]

Yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of this myself, now.

But I'll respond to a last few points:

America has enjoyed, since the fall of the Soviet Union, unchallenged military, political and economic domination of the world. For every rebellion that springs up, every nationalist impulse that drives a country to replace its government, we have reacted with fear and suspicion. Iraqis want us out of their country so they can set about building their own nation. We want other countries to feel American nationalism, not Iraqi or Iranian nationalism. That is the biggest failure of our world view.

My view can best be summarized thus: When Louis Mountbatten left India, he had an exchange with Mohandas Ghandi that went thus:

"If we leave there will be chaos"

"Yes, but it will be our chaos."

The Middle East was the pinnacle of civilization from the late 7th through the 13th century. That did not owe to Europe. They knew and improved upon the knowledge of the ancient world and created a thriving culture whose literature, music, art and architecture were second to NONE. Their influence is still felt today. The word "algebra" is a Arabic derivative. Our numbers are Arabic.

There's plenty that's wrong with the world. Our leadership can help "clean up the mess," but the end result must be a reflection of the wishes and culture of the people we're helping, not of our own. That's the key. Our biggest mistake with Iran was ousting Mohammad Mossadegh. If we'd had any degree of foresight, we would have done nothing then.

Anyway, if anyone wants to have an ideological debate, I'd be happy to. I'd respond further, but my neice is bugging me that it's dinnertime. Thanks guys, I had fun. Debate, even heated debate, is an enjoyable activity. It forces people to take a look at themselves and their views, which both myself and Sonofccn have done, if only in a small way. I hope our activities in the other sections of this forum won't be in any way affected.

Thanks again.

[sonofccn]

We want other countries to feel American nationalism, not Iraqi or Iranian nationalism. That is the biggest failure of our world view.

We wish for nations to be more like us correct.

The Middle East was the pinnacle of civilization from the late 7th through the 13th century. That did not owe to Europe. They knew and improved upon the knowledge of the ancient world and created a thriving culture whose literature, music, art and architecture were second to NONE.

The Middle East benifited greatly from being a crossroads. Thier concept of a numerical zero orginated in india which they adapted. Yes back in the 13th cenutry they were the hieght of technology, one can not dismiss or discredit it. I just want it on record that thier position greatly benifited them.



Lastly....I wish to say I'm sorry. I'm sorry Cocytus for my conduct during our exchange. I was hot headed and short tempered with you, politics tend to bring out my worst. Hope you and your niece have/had a pleasent dinner and a wonderful day.

[Cocytus]

I wish to express my apologies as well. I overreacted to your statements, and slid precariously close to outright mudslinging. Which is why I wanted to end it before it reached that pitch.

Politics tends to bring out the worst in everyone, unfortunately. I'm in a doubly difficult position. I espouse views from both sides of the political spectrum, and sometimes they conflict. I'm more socially liberal, more economically conservative, a gun-owner (though the NRA's right-wing political machine gets to me), a believer in animal rights (though I can't stand PETA's narcissism) and I loathe Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore with equal force. Sometimes it's hard for me to see where I stand on things, especially if my emotions are getting involved. Anyway, just a bit of self-analysis :)

The best expression of my own fear comes from Fareed Zakaria's book "The Post American World." It's a great read, one I fully recommend, and one which, despite its somewhat misleading title, has nothing but praise for the American ideal.

His statement was this: "America seeks to globalize the world, and it is succeeding. But in order to remain relevant in the globalized world it is creating, it must not neglect to globalize itself." America's greatest strength is not the ingenuity of its government, nor the power of its military, but the openness of its society. And it is that ideal of openness I believe in above all else, the ideal codified in the words of Ezra Pound emblazoned on the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my light beside the Golden Door."

Maybe I am as doe-eyed as 2046 suggests.